a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2005 LIVESTOCK 

GRAZING

Federal Expenditures 

and Receipts Vary, 

Depending on the 

Agency and the 

Purpose of the Fee 

Charged

GAO-05-869
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-869.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro 

at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-869, a report to 

congressional requesters 

September 2005

LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary, 

Depending on the Agency and the 

Purpose of the Fee Charged 

The 10 federal agencies managed more than 22.6 million AUMs on about 235 

million acres of federal lands for grazing and land management in fiscal year 

2004. Of this total, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service 

managed more than 98 percent of the lands used for grazing. The agencies 

manage their grazing programs under different authorities and for different 

purposes. For BLM lands and western Forest Service lands, grazing is a 

major program; the eight other agencies generally use grazing as a tool to 

achieve their primary land management goals. 

In fiscal year 2004, federal agencies spent a total of at least $144 million. The 

10 federal agencies spent at least $135.9 million, with the Forest Service and 

BLM accounting for the majority. Other federal agencies have grazingrelated activities, such as pest control, and spent at least $8.4 million in fiscal 

year 2004. 

The 10 federal agencies’ grazing fees generated about $21 million in fiscal 

year 2004—less than one-sixth of the expenditures to manage grazing. Of 

that amount, the agencies distributed about $5.7 million to states and 

counties in which grazing occurred, returned about $3.8 million to the 

Treasury, and deposited at least $11.7 million in separate Treasury accounts 

to help pay for agency programs, among other things. The amounts each 

agency distributed varied, depending on the agencies’ differing authorities. 

Fees charged in 2004 by the 10 federal agencies, as well as state land 

agencies and private ranchers, vary widely. The grazing fee BLM and the 

Forest Service charge, which was $1.43 per AUM in 2004, is established by 

formula and is generally much lower than the fees charged by the other 

federal agencies, states, and private ranchers. The other agencies, states, 

and ranchers generally established fees to obtain the market value of the 

forage. The formula used to calculate the BLM and Forest Service grazing fee

incorporates ranchers’ ability to pay; therefore the current purpose of the fee 

is not primarily to recover the agencies’ expenditures or to capture the fair 

market value of forage. As a result, BLM’s and the Forest Service’s grazing 

receipts fell short of their expenditures on grazing in fiscal year 2004 by 

almost $115 million. The BLM and Forest Service fee also decreased by 40 

percent from 1980 to 2004, while grazing fees charged by private ranchers 

increased by 78 percent for the same period. If the purpose of the fee were 

to recover expenditures, BLM and the Forest Service would have had to 

charge $7.64 and $12.26 per AUM, respectively; alternately, if the purpose 

were to gain a fair market value, the agencies’ fees would vary depending on 

the market. Differences in resources and legal requirements can cause fees 

to vary; however, the approaches used by other agencies could close the gap 

in expenditures and receipts or more closely align BLM and Forest Service 

fees with market prices. The purpose of the grazing fee is, ultimately, for the 

Congress to determine. 

Ranchers pay a fee to graze their 

livestock on federal land. Grazing 

occurs primarily on federal land 

located in the western states 

managed by 10 federal agencies. 

Generally, the fee is based on 

animal unit months (AUM)—the 

amount of forage that a cow and 

her calf can eat in 1 month. For 

most federal land, the fee per AUM 

is established by a formula. 

Advocates argue that grazing uses 

federal land productively and that 

the grazing fee is fair. Opponents 

argue that grazing damages public 

resources and that grazing fees are 

too low. GAO was asked to 

determine the (1) extent of, and 

purposes for, grazing in fiscal year 

2004 on lands 10 federal agencies 

manage; (2) amount federal 

agencies spent in fiscal year 2004 to

manage grazing; (3) total grazing 

receipts the 10 agencies collected 

in fiscal year 2004 and amounts 

disbursed; and (4) fees charged in 

2004 by the 10 agencies, western 

states, and ranchers, and reasons 

for any differences. 

In commenting on a draft of this 

report, the Department of the 

Interior and the Forest Service 

neither agreed nor disagreed with 

the findings. The Forest Service 

stated that the report accurately 

described the purpose of the 

grazing fee. The Army and Air 

Force and the Department of 

Energy provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated 

as appropriate. The departments of

Commerce and of Justice 

responded that they did not have 

comments. 
Page i GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 8

Grazing Occurs on About 235 Million Acres of Federal Lands for a 

Variety of Purposes 14

Federal Agencies Spent at Least $144 Million on Grazing Activities, 

Although Some Agencies Do Not Track Expenditures for Grazing 

on Federal Lands 20

Federal Agencies Collected About $21 Million in Grazing Receipts in 

Fiscal Year 2004—Less Than One-Sixth of the Expenditures 

Needed to Manage Grazing 30

Grazing Fees Charged by Federal Agencies, Western States, and 

Private Ranchers Varied Widely, Depending on the Purpose of the 

Fee and the Approach Taken to Set It 37

Concluding Observations 50

Agency Comments 51

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 55

Appendix II: Additional Factors in Evaluating Federal Grazing 

Expenditures and Revenues 61

Implications of Grazing for Local Economic Development 61

Implications of Grazing on Quality of Rural Communities and 

Rancher’s Life 62

Implications of Grazing for Rangeland Ecosystems and 

Management 64

Appendix III: Detailed Grazing Data for Bureau of Land Management and 

the Forest Service 67

Acres and AUMs of Grazing 67

Permits and Leases by Size 75

Appendix IV: Grazing Fee for Lands Managed by BLM and the Forest 

Service 79

Current Fee for BLM’s and the Forest Service’s Western States 79

History of Western Grazing Fees 84

Appendix V: Examples of Other Federal Agency Grazing Fees 88

Appendix VI: Western State Grazing Fees and Formulas 93

Appendix VII: Comment from Department of the Interior 102

GAO Comments 104
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Forest Service 105

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 106

Related Products 107

Grazing Reports 107

User Fee Reports 109

Tables Table 1: Extent of Grazing in Fiscal Year 2004 on BLM and Forest 

Service Lands, Acres and AUMs 15

Table 2: Extent of Grazing in Fiscal Year 2004 on Other Agencies’ 

Lands, Acres and AUMs 17

Table 3: Expenditures by BLM and the Forest Service for Direct, 

Indirect, and Range Improvement Grazing Activities, 

Fiscal Year 2004 21

Table 4: Estimated Expenditures by the National Park Service, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Reclamation, DOE, and DOD on 

Grazing Activities, Fiscal Year 2004 25

Table 5: Expenditures for Grazing-Related Activities by Other 

Agencies on Federal Lands, Fiscal Year 2004 27

Table 6: BLM and Forest Service Grazing Receipts, Fiscal Year 

2004 31

Table 7: National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Reclamation, DOE, and DOD Services Grazing Receipts, 

Fiscal Year 2004 34

Table 8: Fees Charged by Federal Agencies, State Land Agencies, 

and Private Ranchers, 2004 39

Table 9: Fees Charged by Private Ranchers and State Land 

Agencies in 2004 45

Table 10: BLM Data on Acres and AUMs, by Field Office for Fiscal 

Year 2004 68

Table 11: Forest Service Data on Acres and AUMs, by Forest and 

Grassland, Grazing Year 2004 72

Table 12: Number of BLM Permits by Size, Fiscal Year 2004 76

Table 13: Number of Forest Service Cattle Permits by Size, Grazing 

Year 2004 77

Table 14: Number of Forest Service Sheep Permits by Size, Grazing 

Year 2004 77

Table 15: Number of Cattle and Calf Operations and Percent of 

Inventory, United States, 2004 78

Table 16: Number of Beef Cow Operations and Percent of Inventory, 

United States, 2004 78
Contents

Page iii GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Table 17: PRIA Formula Data for 1979 through 2004 and Fee Results 

for 1980 through 2005 83

Table 18: Information on State Lands Used for Grazing, Revenues, 

and Fee-Setting Approach in 17 Western States, Fiscal Year 

2004 94

Figures Figure 1: Location of Federal Lands, by Agency 9

Figure 2: Grazing Fee BLM and the Forest Service Charged, 1980 to 

2005 48

Figure 3: Unconstrained Formula Results and PRIA Grazing Fee 

Compared with Fees Charged on Private Lands 81

Figure 4: Value of PRIA Grazing Formula Components, 1979 

through 2004 82

Abbreviations

AUM Animal unit month

BCPI Beef Cattle Price Index

BLM Bureau of Land Management

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FVI Forage Value Index

GAO Government Accountability Office

IOAA Independent Offices Appropriation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PPI Prices Paid Index

PRIA Public Rangelands Improvement Act

USDA Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

September 30, 2005 Letr

Congressional Requesters:

Since the early 1900s, the federal government has required ranchers to pay 

a fee for grazing their livestock on millions of acres of federal land located 

primarily in western states. On many federal lands, if these ranchers 

comply with permit or lease conditions, they may be able to renew their 

permits or leases indefinitely, effectively adding forage, and hence value, to 

their operations.1

 Over the years, this arrangement has spurred controversy 

across a range of issues. Advocates of grazing on federal lands contend that 

grazing is a productive use of these lands and supports local economic 

development. Advocates also believe that the fee charged is fair, allows 

ranchers to stay in business, and provides stability to small rural 

communities. Opponents argue that grazing damages public resources, 

such as wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species, and water 

quality. Opponents also argue that federal expenditures for grazing are too 

high and that fees charged for grazing are far too low, thereby contributing 

to increased grazing and deterioration of range conditions. 

Ten federal agencies have programs to allow private ranchers to graze 

livestock on portions of the lands they manage: the Department of the 

Interior’s (Interior) Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation); the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest 

Service; the Department of Energy (DOE); and the Department of Defense’s

1

Agencies use different arrangements to allow grazing on their lands. The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) both permits and leases land for grazing, depending on the legal 

designation of the land being grazed. Similarly, the Bureau of Reclamation also issues 

permits and leases for grazing on project lands. The Forest Service, National Park Service, 

and Fish and Wildlife Service permit grazing on their lands. The Department of Defense 

services lease their lands for grazing. BLM manages grazing permits on lands withdrawn 

from the public domain for use by the Department of Energy. 
Page 2 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

(DOD) Army, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Air Force, and Navy.2 In 

general, agencies manage their grazing programs by establishing permit or 

lease conditions, monitoring livestock numbers and resource conditions, 

planning and overseeing projects to improve rangeland, and working with 

ranchers and local communities. While federal lands in the eastern states 

are also used for grazing, grazing occurs primarily on the agencies’ lands 

located in 17 western states.3

 Other federal agencies, such as USDA’s 

Wildlife Services and the Department of Justice (Justice), do not have 

grazing programs but do conduct activities that support these programs. 

For example, Justice provides legal services to federal agencies, including 

litigation of federal grazing lawsuits. 

Grazing fees are set in several ways. The fee charged for grazing on BLM 

and Forest Service lands is set using a formula first called for under the 

Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978. The formula, which 

expired in 1985 but was continued in 1986 by Executive Order 12548,4

results in a price per animal unit month (AUM)—that is, the amount of 

forage (vegetation such as grass and shrubs) that a cow and her calf eat in a 

month (or one bull, one steer, one horse, or five sheep).5

 Fees can be 

specifically set by legislation, or agencies are authorized, under certain 

circumstances, to charge user fees under the Independent Offices 

Appropriation Act (IOAA). Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

2

While the Army Corps of Engineers is an agency within the Army, we consider it as a 

separate agency for the purposes of this report. The Bureau of Indian Affairs helps Native 

Americans to manage grazing on tribal lands. While private ranchers can lease these lands 

for grazing at a fee, the lands are tribal lands and therefore are not included in this 

discussion of grazing on federal lands.

3

Generally, there are 17 states, including the Great Plains states, considered to be western: 

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, 

North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 

However, depending on the situation, western states can be grouped and counted 

differently. BLM primarily manages grazing in 11 western states, including Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and 

Wyoming. The Forest Service manages grazing for its forests in 16 western states, excluding 

Texas, under the range management subchapter of the Federal Lands Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, and grazing 

on national grasslands.

4

Exec. Order No. 12548 (Feb. 14, 1986). 

5

While BLM uses the term AUM as a unit for purposes of charging fees, the Forest Service 

uses the term head month. The two units are calculated the same way. We will use the term 

AUM in this report to refer to both AUM and head month. Of the other agencies, some 

charge by AUM while others charge a flat fee or by acre. 
Page 3 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Circular A-25, which further interprets IOAA, states that user fees can be 

established to recover the full cost of managing a program or to seek a fair 

market value—that is, the price set through competitive bids or market 

prices. When fees are set through competitive bidding, they achieve a fair 

market value—that is, the price that a willing and knowledgeable buyer 

pays and a willing and knowledgeable seller accepts. Competitive bidding 

usually includes the use of either sealed bids or public auction, advertising 

the permit or lease, and awarding it to the highest bidder. In lieu of 

competition, fees can be set to achieve market value based on an estimate 

or appraisal of comparable properties. 

Changes in the livestock industry, as well as continued disagreement 

between advocates and opponents of grazing have, over the last 2 decades, 

resulted in several efforts to reform federal grazing fees for BLM and Forest 

Service lands. In 1986 and 1992, the two agencies studied alternative 

approaches to value grazing on federal rangelands and the fee charged. In 

1994, the Administration considered administrative changes to the fee and 

range management regulations. In the late 1990s, the Senate passed 

legislation to reform the fee to reflect beef production from federal lands, 

but Congress ultimately did not enact this legislation. In 2003, attention 

turned to buyouts of federal grazing permits and leases in addition to 

grazing fees. Because of changes in the livestock industry—increasing 

conflict with other users of federal land, fluctuating prices of beef, and 

difficulty finding new owners for ranches—some ranchers have expressed 

support for the idea of a buyout. Others remain opposed.

In this context, you asked us to determine for 2004 the (1) extent of grazing 

on, and program purposes for, lands managed by the 10 federal agencies in 

the fiscal year; (2) amount spent in the fiscal year by these agencies, and 

other federal agencies that have grazing-related activities, to manage 

livestock grazing on public lands; (3) total receipts collected during the 

fiscal year for grazing privileges by the 10 federal agencies with grazing 

programs, and the amounts disbursed to counties, states, or the federal 

government; and (4) fees charged by the 10 federal agencies, western 

states, and private ranchers, and the reasons for any differences among the
Page 4 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

fees.6 In considering agencies’ expenditures and receipts, it is important to 

note that we conducted a budgetary evaluation; that is, we examined the 

effects of grazing programs on the U.S. Treasury and the federal budget and 

did not analyze economic costs and benefits, which would involve a broad 

set of trade-offs—some of which cannot be quantified—made by 

individuals, the public, and the federal government. (See app. II for a 

discussion of such factors.)

To respond to these questions, we obtained agencies’ data on acres and 

AUMs for their grazing programs,7

 as well as expenditures, receipts, 

disbursements, and fees.8

 If an agency had a central data information 

system, we obtained the data from this system and determined, through 

interviews, system tests, and file reviews, as appropriate, the reliability of 

the data and whether the agencies have sufficient internal controls over the 

fund information in the systems. If an agency did not centrally track the 

needed data, we developed a data collection instrument for the agency’s 

field unit managers to complete. We relied on data reported by the 

agencies. To assess whether the various types of data were sufficiently 

reliable for use in this report, as well as to check key internal controls over 

grazing receipts, we visited several agencies’ field offices to review their 

grazing programs, data systems, and a selection of grazing files to verify the 

billing information; and we interviewed officials about key steps in the 

processes for issuing grazing permits and leases and billing for and 

collecting fees. We reviewed all the files at agencies with smaller grazing 

programs (those with up to 25 permits or leases at an office) and selected 

10 percent of files at the two agencies that had large grazing programs (250 

6

Data on acres and AUMs are provided for fiscal years, except for the Forest Service, which 

reported these data by grazing year. The grazing year extends from March through February. 

Data on expenditures and receipts are reported by fiscal year, while fee data are reported 

differently depending on the agency. Specifically, BLM and Forest Service fees are reported 

by grazing year, the other federal agencies’ fees are reported by fiscal year, state fees are 

reported primarily by fiscal year, and private fees and some state fees are reported by 

calendar year. 

7

While the majority of grazing is described according to AUMs and many agencies can 

calculate the amount of AUMs in their permits and leases, some of the agencies’ field offices 

do not use AUMs as a convention to measure grazing. These offices use other measures to 

determine the amount of grazing that is occurring, for example, the amount of forage that 

remains. About five national parks, one Air Force base, and two Corps districts did not 

provide information on AUMs.

8

The discussion does not include Alaska, which is treated differently in grazing law. See 43 

U.S.C. § 316.
Page 5 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

and 500 allotment files per office). While we gathered and reviewed 

expenditure data from the agencies, we did not validate the data or the 

accounting systems that produced them. To understand the differences 

among fees and approaches to setting fees, we interviewed a range of 

experts from Colorado State University, New Mexico State University, 

Oregon State University, and the University of Montana, as well as the 

Society for Range Management. See appendix I for a detailed discussion of 

our methodology. We conducted our review between August 2004 and July 

2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

Results in Brief The 10 federal agencies managed more than 22.6 million AUMs on about 

235 million acres of federal lands for private grazing and land management 

in fiscal year 2004. Of this total, BLM and the Forest Service managed 

almost 21.9 million AUMs on almost 231 million acres, or more than 98 

percent of the federal lands used for grazing. The remaining 8 agencies 

managed almost 794,000 AUMs on more than 4 million acres. While the 

agencies’ grazing programs are similar in that they offer private ranchers 

access to federal lands and forage for their livestock, the agencies manage 

their grazing programs under different authorities and for different 

purposes. For BLM lands and western Forest Service lands, grazing is 

considered a principal or major program, while other agencies generally 

use grazing as a management tool to achieve their land management goals. 

For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service uses grazing to reduce 

some grasses and thereby allow other grasses to flourish that are favorable 

to particular types of birds. Similarly, some of the DOD services use 

livestock to “cut” their grass. 

In fiscal year 2004, federal agencies, both those that have grazing programs 

and those that have activities to support grazing, spent a total of at least 

$144.3 million. The 10 federal agencies with grazing programs spent at least 

$135.9 million, of which BLM and the Forest Service spent the majority— 

about $132.5 million. The 8 remaining agencies spent at least $3.4 million, 

but not all of them could estimate their expenditures because they do not 

conduct grazing as a major activity and therefore do not track expenditures 

specifically for grazing. The 10 agencies spent funds on activities that 

directly supported grazing, such as managing permits and leases, managing 

grazing allotments, assessing the resource conditions of these allotments, 

and implementing projects to improve the allotments, such as building 

fences and developing water projects. They also spent funds on activities 

that indirectly supported grazing, such as management, budget, personnel, 
Page 6 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

and other activities. In addition to these 10 agencies’ expenditures, other 

federal agencies that do not have grazing programs spent at least $8.4 

million to support grazing on public lands; some do not know the amount 

they spent because they do not distinguish between work done on public 

and private lands. For example, USDA’s Wildlife Services removes 

predatory or nuisance wildlife that threaten livestock on both public and 

private lands; the agency estimated that it spent more than $5 million in 

fiscal year 2004 on its activities on public lands. In the same year, Justice, 

which provides legal services to federal agencies including services for 

litigation related to grazing on public land, estimated that it spent about 

$159,000 on grazing lawsuits. Other agencies, such as the Environmental 

Protection Agency and USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

conduct water quality projects and range improvement work that are 

related to grazing, but the agencies cannot separate expenditures for public 

lands from those on private lands. 

The grazing permits and leases the 10 federal agencies manage generated a 

total of about $21 million from fees charged in fiscal year 2004—or less 

than one-sixth of the expenditures to manage grazing. From that amount, 

the agencies distributed almost $5.7 million to states and counties in which 

grazing occurred, deposited almost $3.8 million in the Treasury as 

miscellaneous receipts, and deposited at least $11.7 million in separate 

Treasury accounts for the agencies’ use. The amounts distributed by each 

agency vary, depending on the agencies’ differing authorities. For example, 

of the $11.7 million deposited in the separate Treasury accounts, BLM and 

the Forest Service deposited $8.8 million into their range improvement 

funds. The majority of grazing receipts—more than $17.5 million—came 

from BLM and Forest Service permits and leases, while more than $3.7 

million was generated from the remaining agencies. In addition to cash 

receipts, the DOD services also received almost $1.4 million in services, 

such as maintaining fences, that offset grazing fees charged to their lessees. 

Fees charged in 2004 by the 10 federal agencies, as well as state land 

agencies and private ranchers, vary widely, depending on the purpose for 

which the fees were established and the approach used to set the fees. The 

fee BLM and the Forest Service charge for grazing—which was $2.36 per 

AUM for BLM and $2.41 per AUM for the Forest Service in 1980, when the 

fee based on the formula enacted by PRIA was first charged, and $1.43 per 

AUM in 2004—is established by formula to account for livestock industry 

prices and to support ranchers and the western livestock industry. It is 

therefore generally lower than the fees charged by the other federal 

agencies, states, and private ranchers. The other agencies generally 
Page 7 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

establish their fees based on the market value of the forage, and as a result 

charged fees ranging from $0.29 to more than $112 per AUM in fiscal year 

2004, depending on the location, range condition, and accompanying 

in-kind services. The state land agencies in 17 western states charged fees 

that ranged from $1.35 to $80 per AUM in fiscal year 2004, while the average 

fee private ranchers charged ranged from $8 per AUM in Arizona and 

Oklahoma to $23 per AUM in Nebraska. The complex formula used to 

calculate the BLM and Forest Service fee for grazing on their lands 

incorporates factors that consider ranchers’ ability to pay; the purpose of 

the fee is therefore not primarily to recover the agencies’ expenditures or 

to capture the fair market value of forage. These factors that adjust the fee 

resulted in a difference of almost $115 million between grazing receipts and 

agencies’ expenditures on grazing activities in fiscal year 2004. BLM and 

the Forest Service would have had to charge $7.64 per AUM and $12.26 per 

AUM, respectively, to recover these expenditures in 2004. These 

adjustment factors also resulted in the fee decreasing by 40 percent from 

1980 to 2004 for grazing on BLM and Forest Service lands, while fees 

charged by private ranchers increased 78 percent over the same period. 

Although differences in the quality of resources, the level of services 

provided, and legal requirements complicate the comparison of private and 

federal lands, and competitive methods may be administratively expensive, 

the approaches other federal agencies, states, and private ranchers use 

could provide alternative approaches for setting fees. These approaches 

could close the gap in expenditures and receipts or more closely align BLM 

and Forest Service fees with market prices; however, the purpose of the 

grazing fee and any policy trade-offs are, ultimately, for the Congress to 

determine. 

In responding to a draft of this report, Interior and the Forest Service 

provided written comments. The agencies neither agreed nor disagreed 

with the findings. Interior stated that the report recognized that differences 

in resource conditions and legal requirements can cause grazing fees to 

vary. The Forest Service stated that the report accurately described the 

purpose of the grazing fee charged by BLM and the Forest Service. DOD 

and DOE provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. The departments of Commerce and of Justice responded that 

they did not have comments. Interior’s and the Forest Service’s comments 

are included in appendixes VII and VIII, respectively.
Page 8 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Background The federal government manages more than 680 million acres of land in the 

United States, including lands in national forests, grasslands, parks, 

refuges, reservoirs, and military bases and installations. Of the total federal 

lands, BLM and the Forest Service manage almost 450 million acres for 

multiple uses, including timber harvest, recreation, grazing, minerals, water 

supply and quality, and wildlife habitat. BLM’s 12 state offices manage more 

than 260 million acres in 12 western states, including 82 million acres in 

Alaska, while the Forest Service’s 123 administrative offices manage more 

than 190 million acres across the nation.9

 As shown in figure 1, the majority 

of federal lands are located in the western half of the country.

9

While the Forest Service has 155 proclaimed national forests and 20 grasslands, it has 

combined them into 123 administrative offices for management purposes. 
Page 9 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Figure 1: Location of Federal Lands, by Agency

The remaining lands are managed by the following agencies for different 

purposes: 

• Interior’s National Park Service manages more than 350 national parks, 

monuments, seashores, battlefields, preserves, and other areas on 84 

million acres of federal land; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages 

more than 540 national wildlife refuges and 37 large multiple-unit 

wetland management districts on more than 96 million acres of land; 

and Reclamation manages about 8.5 million acres of land associated 

with water projects in 17 western states. 

Bureau of Land 

Management

Bureau of Reclamation

Department of Defense

Department of Energy

Forest Service

Fish and Wildlife Service

National Park Service

Other

Source: U.S. Geological Survey's National Atlas Web site (data); GAO (analysis). 
Page 10 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

• DOE manages almost 2.4 million acres of land making it the fourth 

largest federal land owner after Interior, USDA, and DOD. It operates 30 

major facilities on land holdings in 34 states. The buffer zones 

surrounding many of these facilities consist of forests and rangelands.

• DOD has numerous Army, Air Force, and Navy installations on 29 

million acres of land in many states, while the Corps, like Reclamation, 

manages 12.7 million acres of land associated with water projects in 

many states. 

Livestock Grazing in the 

United States

Most rangelands—primarily grasslands and shrublands—used to raise 

livestock in the United States are privately owned, and as a result, only a 

portion of livestock is raised on federal land.10 In 2004, the livestock 

industry had almost 95 million cattle and 989,460 cattle and calf operations, 

which include cattle raised for beef as well as milk.11 Regionally, the 

eastern states had almost 590,000 cattle and calf operations, of which 

almost 440,500 were beef cow operations; the states in the Great Plains 

(Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, North and South Dakota, and Texas) had 

292,300 cattle and calf operations with 253,000 beef cow operations; and 

the 11 western states had more than 106,000 cattle and calf operations with 

about 80,400 beef cow operations. In contrast, the number of livestock 

operations with BLM and Forest Service grazing permits and leases for 

cattle, sheep, and other livestock totaled more than 23,000. Livestock 

operations in the West differ from those in the eastern United States. In the 

West, livestock operations involve larger areas of land, and ranchers 

depend on a mix of private and federal lands to graze cattle seasonally—in 

the summer and fall they use federal lands to graze their livestock while 

they grow hay crops for the winter on their private lands. In some parts of 

the West, primarily the Southwest, grazing occurs year-round on federal 

lands. In the East, sufficient rain allows grazing to occur on smaller 

pastures, in some places, year-round. 

10Rangelands are lands on which the indigenous vegetation is predominantly grasses, 

grass-like plants, forbs (herbs), or shrubs and is managed as a natural ecosystem. 

Rangelands include natural grasslands, savannas, many deserts, tundras, alpine 

communities, marshes, and meadows. They differ from pastureland in that they are not 

periodically planted or treated through tilling, fertilization, mowing, weed control, or 

irrigation. Not all rangelands are used for grazing purposes.

11In the same year, the industry had about 6 million sheep and 67,160 sheep operations, 

which raise sheep for both meat and wool.
Page 11 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Grazing on Federal Lands The country’s rangelands have been used to graze domestic livestock since 

the United States was settled, and the federal government has managed 

grazing on federal lands for more than 100 years. During western 

expansion, settlement typically occurred along streams and rivers, where 

the soil is richer, vegetation denser, and water more available. Lands that 

remained for the federal government to manage after western expansion 

were lands that settlers did not want or could not easily settle; the lands are 

often drier, less productive, and located at higher elevations or farther from 

water. As the West was settled throughout the late 1800s, conflict among 

different users of the rangelands increased, as did degradation of these 

lands. As a result, in 1897, the federal government began managing 

livestock grazing in the nation’s forest reserves; in 1906, the Forest Service 

started charging a fee for grazing on these reserves. 

The Forest Service managed grazing under its general authorities until 

1950, when Congress enacted the Granger-Thye Act, authorizing the 

Secretary of Agriculture to issue grazing permits on national forest lands 

and other lands under the department’s administration. In addition to 

national forest lands on which grazing is allowed in the 16 western states, 

the Forest Service manages national grasslands in the western states and 

forest lands in the eastern states for grazing. The federal government 

started purchasing privately owned land in 1911 as necessary for regulating 

the flow of navigable streams, creating national forests in the East. The 

national grasslands, which are primarily located in Colorado, Kansas, New 

Mexico, and North and South Dakota, were purchased by the federal 

government under a land utilization program started in the 1930s. 

Originally, the program purchased submarginal lands to provide emergency 

relief to farmers whose lands were failing. It evolved into a program 

designed to transfer land to its most suitable use, culminating in the 

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937. In 1954, the Secretary of 

Agriculture transferred the responsibility for program administration to the 

Forest Service and in 1960 designated almost 3.8 million acres of lands in 

the program as national grasslands. 

To stop continued degradation caused by overgrazing of the remaining 

public lands, among other purposes, the Congress passed the Taylor 

Grazing Act in 1934. Under the act, the predecessor to BLM—the Grazing 

Service—was created, and control over grazing on public lands was 

established. The Taylor Grazing Act authorized the establishment of 

grazing districts from public lands that were considered to be chiefly 

valuable for grazing and raising forage crops and the leasing of other public 

lands that were located outside grazing districts. The act also provided for 
Page 12 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

the issuance of permits and leases for these lands and set forth 

requirements for the distribution of funds received from grazing. Additional 

laws affecting grazing on both BLM and western Forest Service lands were 

enacted in the 1970s. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA) limited the length of permits and leases to 10 years and allowed 

shorter terms, authorized terms and conditions to be placed on a permit or 

lease, and allowed seasonal limits on grazing. In 1978, PRIA required BLM 

and the Forest Service to inventory and manage their lands in western 

states. 

To provide access to grazing, both BLM and the Forest Service divide their 

rangelands into allotments, which can vary in size from a few acres to 

hundreds of thousands of acres of land. Because of the land ownership 

patterns that occurred when the lands were settled, the allotments can be 

adjacent to private lands, or they can be intermingled with private lands. 

Under its authorities, BLM permits grazing in allotments within its grazing 

districts and leases lands outside grazing districts. The Forest Service, 

which does not have grazing districts, uses permits to authorize grazing in 

its allotments. To be eligible for a permit or lease on one of BLM’s 

allotments, ranchers, among other things, are required to own or control 

land or water, called a base property.12 Under Forest Service guidance, 

permits are issued to purchasers of permitted livestock or base property. 

The other federal agencies that manage grazing do not have the same 

grazing authorities, processes, or fees as BLM and the Forest Service. Each 

agency manages its grazing for different purposes and under different 

authorities. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permits grazing 

on a year-to-year basis, depending on a refuge’s land management goals, 

while the National Park Service permits grazing for a longer period but can 

choose to not renew a permit if certain conditions change, including 

damage to park resources, limitations to interpretive experiences, or 

impairment of park facilities.

12A base property is property that is capable of serving as a base of operation for livestock 

use of public lands within a grazing district or contiguous land, or, when no applicant owns 

or controls contiguous land, noncontiguous land that is capable of being used in 

conjunction with a livestock operation that would use public lands outside a grazing district. 

A water base is water that is suitable for consumption by livestock and is available and 

accessible to the authorized livestock when the public lands are used for livestock grazing.
Page 13 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

User Fees for Grazing on 

Federal Lands

Federal grazing fees are considered as user fees. Without statutory 

authority to charge a fee and retain the proceeds, a federal agency may not 

charge a fee to defray the cost of services or resources it provides. 

Congress has provided some agencies with specific authority to charge a 

user fee and retain and use the proceeds. If an agency does not have 

specific authority, the IOAA provides general authority for an agency to 

impose a fee if certain conditions are met. However, even if the user fee 

applies, an agency may not retain the proceeds from a user fee without 

specific authority to that effect, but must credit the collections to the 

general fund of the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. OMB Circular A-25 

provides guidance to agencies regarding their imposition of user fees under 

the IOAA and other statutes. Under the circular, federal agencies that do 

not have specific authority to impose a fee are to charge user fees pursuant 

to the IOAA when an individual or a group receives benefits—such as those 

that provide business stability or respond to an individual or a group’s 

request—that are greater than those that the general public enjoys. 

Increasingly since the 1980s, to relieve pressure on taxpayers for increasing 

general appropriations for the federal government, user fees have been 

levied to help pay for federal services and resources that benefit specific 

groups of users. User fees differ from broad-based taxes in that they 

attempt to recover some amount of the government expenditures made for 

a specific program. For example, Congress enacted laws to increase the 

use of recreation fees for access to federal parks, forests, and BLM lands in 

the 1990s. 

While agencies are generally to deposit funds they receive in the general 

fund of the Treasury under the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, some federal 

agencies have specific legislative authority to distribute funds to states and 

counties or to deposit funds into special accounts in the Treasury for the 

agency’s or program’s use. Generally, funds that are deposited into the 

Treasury as miscellaneous receipts are deposited in the general fund where 

they are then available to be appropriated as Congress may see fit. Funds 

that are deposited into special accounts in the Treasury are dedicated for 

specific purposes. The special accounts may be permanently appropriated 

or further congressional action may be needed to make the funds available. 

Some agencies are also authorized to retain funds for credit to their 

appropriations. 
Page 14 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Grazing Occurs on 

About 235 Million 

Acres of Federal Lands 

for a Variety of 

Purposes

In fiscal year 2004, BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Reclamation, DOE, the Army, the Corps, Air 

Force, and Navy allowed more than 22.6 million AUMs of grazing on about 

235 million acres of the lands they manage.13 BLM and the Forest Service 

managed most of this grazing activity, allowing almost 21.9 million AUMs 

on almost 231 million acres, or more than 98 percent of the grazed lands. 

The remaining eight agencies allowed almost 794,000 AUMs of grazing on 

more than 4 million acres. While the agencies’ grazing programs are similar 

in that they offer private ranchers access to federal lands and vegetation for 

their livestock, agencies manage their grazing programs under different 

authorities and for different purposes. 

BLM and the Forest Service 

Managed About 230.6 

Million Acres for About 21.9 

Million AUMs of Private 

Livestock Grazing in Fiscal 

Year 2004 to Foster 

Economic Development

As table 1 shows, in fiscal year 2004, BLM and the Forest Service approved 

a total of almost 21.9 million AUMs for grazing on more than 230.6 million 

acres—BLM approved almost 12.7 million AUMs on more than 137.7 

million acres, and the Forest Service approved almost 9.2 million AUMs on 

more than 92.9 million acres. Ranchers were billed for and used fewer 

AUMs—a total of almost 13.7 million AUMs—primarily because of the 

continuing drought in the western and southwestern states, according to 

agency officials. While BLM maintains a list of historical AUMs—or grazing 

privileges that have been reduced from historical amounts and are not 

available to be used—these numbers do not affect the totals. 

13The Forest Service data on the extent of grazing is for the grazing year March 2004 to 

February 2005; the remaining agencies provided grazing data for fiscal year 2004.
Page 15 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Table 1: Extent of Grazing in Fiscal Year 2004 on BLM and Forest Service Lands, Acres and AUMs 

Source: BLM and Forest Service (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

a

BLM has 12 state offices, 2 of which—the Eastern Office and the Alaska Office—are not included 

here. BLM manages grazing under PRIA in the 11 states listed, which are managed by the 10 state 

offices. 

b

The Forest Service is organized by regions, not states.

c

BLM authorizes grazing on approximately 160 million acres of land, but all the land may not be used 

for grazing in any given year. The number in the table represents BLM’s best estimate of the lands on 

which grazing was billed.

As table 1 shows, BLM’s and the Forest Service’s responsibilities for 

managing grazing varied considerably by state office or Forest Service 

region. The BLM Nevada state office had the most grazing in fiscal year 

2004, in terms of both acres and approved AUMs, while Montana had the 

Agency Acres AUMs approved AUMs billed

BLM state officesa

Arizona 7,955,000 660,000 354,000

California 5,672,000 421,000 196,000

Colorado 6,593,000 655,000 311,000

Idaho 10,756,000 1,352,000 899,000

Montana 7,839,000 1,366,000 1,178,000

New Mexico 11,533,000 1,869,000 1,134,000

Nevada 39,331,000 2,129,000 1,075,000

Oregon/Washington 12,786,000 1,058,000 740,000

Utah 19,321,000 1,229,000 553,000

Wyoming 15,917,000 1,951,000 1,193,000

Subtotal 137,702,000c 12,691,000 7,634,000

Forest Serviceb

Eastern 75,000 35,000 34,000

Intermountain 24,107,000 2,979,000 2,164,000

Northern 8,268,000 1,095,000 539,000

Pacific Northwest 11,408,000 550,000 398,000

Pacific Southwest 12,353,000 486,000 374,000

Rocky Mountain 17,129,000 1,927,000 1,564,000

Southern 675,000 40,000 19,000

Southwestern 18,908,000 2,052,000 959,000

Subtotal 92,924,000 9,165,000 6,051,000

Total 230,626,000 21,856,000 13,685,000
Page 16 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

most grazing in terms of billed AUMs; the California state office had the 

least grazing, in terms of both acres and approved AUMs. For the Forest 

Service, the Intermountain Region, which includes Utah, Nevada, and 

portions of Idaho and Wyoming, had the most grazing, while the Eastern 

and Southern regions had the smallest amounts of grazing. Appendix III 

contains the detailed extent of grazing for each BLM field office within 

each state office and Forest Service administrative office.

Grazing is allowed on BLM and Forest Service lands for the purpose of 

fostering economic development for private ranchers and ranching 

communities by providing ranchers access to additional forage. 

Particularly in the western states, where the agencies manage anywhere 

from 30 to almost 85 percent of the land, access to federal forage increases 

the total forage available to ranchers, enabling them to increase the 

number of livestock they can support and sell. Under FLPMA, the Taylor 

Grazing Act, and the Granger-Thye Act, BLM’s and the Forest Service’s 

permits and leases are set for not more than 10 years and can be renewed 

without competition at the end of that period, which gives the permittee or 

lessee a priority position against others for receiving a permit or lease—a 

position called “preference.” While ranchers have preference, they do not 

obtain title to federal lands through their grazing permits and leases, nor do 

they have exclusive access to the federal lands, which are managed for 

multiple purposes or uses.

The Remaining Eight 

Federal Agencies Managed 

About 794,000 AUMs of 

Grazing on More Than 4 

Million Acres in Fiscal Year 

2004 to Help Them Achieve 

Land Management 

Objectives

In fiscal year 2004, the National Park Service, Reclamation, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, DOE, and DOD services managed about 794,000 AUMs of 

grazing on more than 4 million acres of land. Table 2 shows the extent of 

grazing. 
Page 17 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Table 2: Extent of Grazing in Fiscal Year 2004 on Other Agencies’ Lands, Acres and AUMs

Source: Agencies (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

a

The rate of AUMs per acre can vary, depending on the productivity of the land and does not 

necessarily show overuse or underuse of land.

b

This total does not include about 2.7 million acres of National Park Service land in Alaska that has 

about 17,000 AUMs approved for grazing or almost 795,000 acres of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

land in Alaska that has about 12,000 AUMs approved for grazing. These lands are approved for 

grazing of reindeer, and no fees are charged.

c

This total includes almost 499,000 acres of Reclamation land with about 47,000 AUMs approved and 

41,000 billed AUMs that are managed by other agencies. Of the 499,000 acres, BLM managed almost 

172,000 acres and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service managed almost 66,000 acres.

As table 2 shows, the extent of grazing on the eight agencies’ lands varied 

considerably in fiscal year 2004, with the National Park Service managing 

grazing on about 1,580,000 acres, while the Navy managed almost 16,000 

acres. In terms of approved AUMs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

managed the most—more than 199,000 AUMs—while DOE allowed about 

13,000 AUMs. 

The eight agencies presented in table 2 manage or allow grazing for 

different purposes, as the following discussion details: 

National Park Service. The agency is authorized to allow grazing within 

any national park, monument, or reservation as long as such use is not 

detrimental to the primary purpose for creating the park, monument, or 

Agency

Number of parks, refuges,

projects, and installations Acresa AUMs approved AUMs billed

Interior

National Park Service 31 parks 1,580,000b 71,000 63,000

Reclamation 36 projects 737,000c 91,000 77,000

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 94 refuges 740,000b 199,000 199,000

Subtotal 161 3,054,000 361,000 339,000

DOE 1 site 291,000 13,000 6,000

DOD

Air Force 12 installations 277,000 102,000 89,000

Army 20 installations 201,000 126,000 122,000

Corps 64 projects 169,000 162,000 161,000

Navy 8 installations 16,000 30,000 28,000

Subtotal 104 663,000 420,000 399,000

Total 266 4,008,000 794,000 744,000
Page 18 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

reservation. Agency regulations prohibit grazing except as (1) specifically 

authorized by statute, (2) required under a reservation of use rights arising 

from the acquisition of a tract of land, (3) required in order to maintain a 

historic scene, or (4) conducted as an integral part of a recreational 

activity. For example, in Virginia and North Carolina, the agency allows 

grazing at Blue Ridge National Parkway—about 5,000 AUMs of cattle on 

more than 2,000 acres—to maintain a historic scene. In contrast, at the 

Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, the agency allowed 

grazing on almost 200 acres to maintain a desirable grass level. Grazing is 

managed as a special park use, requiring a permit, lease, concession, 

contract, or commercial use authorization. Each park superintendent 

approves or disapproves requests for special park uses, such as grazing, 

and can impose conditions to protect park resources and values and 

visitors and the visitors’ experience. In fiscal year 2004, the National Park 

Service reported that grazing was permitted to occur at 31 of its parks, with 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, in Utah and Arizona, accounting for 

the most acres—almost 666,000—and Point Reyes National Seashore, in 

California, accounting for the most AUMs—about 18,500 AUMs on about 

24,000 acres. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 authorizes various uses of U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service lands, including grazing, as long as the agency determines that such 

use is compatible with the major purposes for which the refuge was 

established. The agency uses grazing as a tool to manage habitat. For 

example, in the Anahuac, McFaddin, and Texas Point National Wildlife 

Refuges, along the Texas Gulf Coast, the agency allowed livestock grazing 

from October to April, the cool season of the year, to encourage different 

types of marsh grasses, generate annuals, and increase vegetative diversity, 

thereby opening up additional habitat for foraging waterfowl. In fiscal year 

2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that livestock grazing 

occurred on 94 of its refuges and wetland management districts, ranging 

from 25 AUMs on 60 acres at Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District in 

Minnesota to about 21,500 AUMs on 450,000 acres at the Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge in Montana. 

Reclamation. Reclamation allows its lands to be used for incidental 

purposes, such as recreation and grazing, as long as such uses do not 

interfere with the operation of the dams or irrigation works associated with 

these projects. In general, Reclamation allows grazing on its project lands 

when asked to do so by users, such as ranchers who have had historical 

access to the lands or wildlife managers wanting to improve habitat. For 
Page 19 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

example, the Albuquerque Area Office allows grazing on more than 19,000 

acres in the Brantley and Avalon Reservoirs project area, thereby allowing 

ranchers access to lands that they historically grazed. In fiscal year 2004, 

Reclamation reported that it permitted and leased lands for grazing at 36 of 

its facilities in 16 area offices, with the agency managing some of the 

permits and leases and other agencies, such as BLM, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, or local and state agencies managing additional permits 

and leases under joint management agreements. For example, in central 

Washington state, BLM manages grazing on more than 8,000 acres of 

Reclamation land that is adjacent to BLM land in the Columbia Basin 

Project. In the same area, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

manages grazing on almost 18,000 acres of Reclamation land to improve 

vegetation and thereby enhance bird habitat. In total, in fiscal year 2004, 

Reclamation issued permits and leases for about 91,000 AUMs of grazing on 

almost 737,000 acres—almost 44,000 AUMs and about 238,000 acres under 

Reclamation’s management and about 47,000 AUMs and about 499,000 

acres managed by agreement with other agencies. 

DOE. The department allows grazing on only one site, the Idaho National 

Laboratory. Under the Taylor Grazing Act, the Secretary of the Interior is 

authorized, by order and with the approval of the relevant department, to 

establish grazing districts of certain public domain lands that are not in 

national forests, parks, or monuments. In Idaho, Interior, with the 

agreement of DOE, issued such an order, and livestock grazing continues 

on approximately 50 percent of the Idaho National Laboratory site. BLM 

manages the land as part of its grazing program but is to follow the security 

and land access requirements set by DOE. 

DOD. Under 10 U.S.C. § 2667, the Secretaries of the Army, Air Force, and 

Navy are authorized to lease property under their control that is not excess 

property, if it will promote national defense or be in the public interest. The 

military services use this authority to lease rangelands on military 

installations and bases for grazing, among other uses. For example, the Air 

Force leases to nearby ranchers land that forms a buffer around the 

Melrose Air Force Range at Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico. The 

buffer consists of rangelands surrounding target areas used in training 

exercises and protects more developed areas from stray (unarmed) bombs. 

According to Air Force staff, leasing the land to ranchers does not hinder 

training exercises, but it does provide access to grazing for neighboring 

landowners and to maintain rangeland, by keeping grass low, to control 

fire. Similarly, Fort Hood in Texas allows grazing on lands used for armored 

vehicle training maneuvers. The Army determined that grazing cattle could 
Page 20 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

be compatible with training exercises, although uncertainty remains about 

the intensity of grazing that can be allowed, given the need to let vegetation 

recover from training exercises, and hence, reduce soil erosion into nearby 

streams and reservoirs. Like the Army, Air Force, and Navy, the Corps 

manages grazing on its lands under 10 U.S.C. § 2667. In fiscal year 2004, the 

DOD military services leased about 494,000 acres for grazing, and the Corps 

leased about 169,000 acres.

Federal Agencies Spent 

at Least $144 Million on 

Grazing Activities, 

Although Some 

Agencies Do Not Track 

Expenditures for 

Grazing on Federal 

Lands 

Federal agencies spent at least $144.3 million in direct and indirect 

expenditures to support grazing activities on federal lands in fiscal year 

2004. The 10 federal agencies spent at least $135.9 million, of which the 

Forest Service and BLM spent the majority of funds, about $132.5 million. 

The 8 remaining agencies spent at least $3.4 million on their grazing 

programs, but not all of the agencies could estimate their expenditures 

because they do not conduct grazing as a major activity and therefore do 

not specifically track grazing expenditures. The 10 agencies spent funds on 

activities that directly supported grazing, such as managing permits and 

leases, monitoring resource conditions on grazing allotments, assuring 

permit and lease compliance, and implementing range improvements such 

as developing water sources and constructing fences. The agencies also 

spent funds on activities that indirectly supported grazing, such as 

management, budget, and personnel. In addition to these 10 agencies’ 

expenditures, other federal agencies that do not have grazing programs 

spent at least $8.4 million to support grazing on public lands. While some of 

these agencies could identify their expenditures related to grazing on 

public lands, not all agencies could do so because they do not distinguish 

between work done on public and private lands. These agencies spent 

funds on activities related to grazing, such as grazing litigation, threatened 

and endangered species consultations for grazing plans, and the removal of 

predatory or nuisance wildlife from grazing lands. Because some agencies 

do not track their grazing expenditures on public lands specifically, the 

expenditures presented are a conservative estimate of federal grazing 

expenditures; expenditures would most likely be higher if these agencies 

could provide estimates.
Page 21 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

BLM and the Forest Service 

Spent About $132.5 Million 

on Direct, Indirect, and 

Range Improvement 

Activities for Grazing 

Programs in Fiscal Year 

2004

BLM and the Forest Service spent about $132.5 million to manage their 

grazing programs in fiscal year 2004—BLM spent more than $58.3 million, 

and the Forest Service spent almost $74.2 million. As shown in table 3, the 

agencies spent these funds on both direct, indirect, and range improvement 

activities. BLM has implemented a cost-management system that identifies 

direct and indirect expenditures and used it to identify its direct and 

indirect expenditures in fiscal year 2004. Unlike BLM, the Forest Service 

does not have a cost-management system, but rather reports expenditures 

for items in its budget, called budget line items.14 The agency uses its 

Foundation Financial Information System to centrally track and formally 

report expenditures. For fiscal year 2004, the Forest Service used 

expenditure reports for grazing and related line items, in addition to its 

WorkPlan system that shows its intended work plans for the fiscal year, to 

identify the amount of expenditures.15

Table 3: Expenditures by BLM and the Forest Service for Direct, Indirect, and Range 

Improvement Grazing Activities, Fiscal Year 2004

14According to a Forest Service financial management official, the agency has not 

implemented a cost-accounting system because it has been focused on improving the 

agency’s financial statements, which we previously identified as having material control 

weaknesses. 

15The Forest Service implemented a new work planning system, called WorkPlan, in fiscal 

year 2004. The system allows forests and districts to develop detailed plans, including 

personnel resources, vehicles, and other resources, needed for conducting work on 

individual projects. The plans are used to allocate budgets and are to be updated during the 

year to keep the plans current.

Dollars in millions

Agency

Number of BLM field offices and

Forest Service administrative

offices allowing grazing Expenditures

BLM 

Direct $27.9

Indirect 18.7

Range improvement funds 

(both direct and indirect) 11.7

Subtotal 107 $58.3

Forest Servicea
Page 22 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Source: BLM and Forest Service (data); GAO (analysis).

a

The Forest Service estimated direct expenditures from the Forest Service grazing line item, its 

watershed and vegetation line item, and its General Management and other cost pools. Because the 

watershed and vegetation line item can be spent for other programs in addition to the grazing program, 

the Forest Service allocated a portion (11 percent) of these expenditures using WorkPlan, a tool used 

to estimate and plan fiscal year workloads by program. To estimate the expenditures from its General 

Management and other cost pools, the agency attributed a portion of the grazing line item equal to the 

amount of funds allocated to the pools and attributed a share of the watershed and vegetation line item 

equal to the allocated portion (11 percent) of funds in the pools. 

In fiscal year 2004, the agencies generally included the same activities in 

reporting their expenditures. Both BLM and the Forest Service included 

managing grazing permits and leases, monitoring resource conditions on 

grazing allotments, conducting environmental assessments for allotments, 

and managing grazing fees as direct expenditures. Both agencies included 

expenditures that specifically related to grazing management, rather than 

broader range management expenditures, because grazing activities are 

distinct from more general rangeland management activities. According to 

agency officials, many range management activities need to be conducted 

whether or not grazing occurs. For example, monitoring rangeland 

conditions through vegetation surveys supports work that the agencies 

conduct to manage noxious weeds. While some noxious weeds may occur 

on federal lands as a result of livestock grazing, some can be transported by 

other means. Although both agencies spent funds on land management 

planning to support their specific grazing plans and activities, neither 

agency included land management planning expenditures. According to 

BLM and Forest Service officials, land management planning and 

environmental impact statements are important enough to be a separate 

direct expenditure from grazing and would continue to occur if the 

agencies no longer permitted or leased grazing activities on their lands. 

Furthermore, according to agency officials, land management planning 

encompasses all activities—including livestock grazing—conducted by 

BLM, at the field office level on public lands, or by the Forest Service, at the 

national forest level for all national forest system lands. Even if grazing 

Direct 58.0

Indirect 13.3

Range improvement funds 

(both direct and indirect) 2.9

Subtotal 99 $74.2

Total 206 $132.5

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

Agency

Number of BLM field offices and

Forest Service administrative

offices allowing grazing Expenditures
Page 23 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

activities were not conducted, other range management activities, such as 

oil and gas leasing and off-road vehicle use, would still need to be planned 

and studied.

For indirect grazing activities in fiscal year 2004, BLM spent almost $18.7 

million, and the Forest Service spent an estimated $13.3 million. Indirect 

activities are those that cannot be specifically attributed to grazing because 

they also benefit other resource programs. These include activities such as 

administrative activities, infrastructure, or technical support.16 One method 

of allocating indirect expenditures is to pool the activities and allocate the 

related expenditures across all the programs that use the activities. BLM 

allocated its indirect expenditures using its cost-management system. The 

system allocated expenditures for such activities as management, state 

office expenditures, and BLM office expenditures in fiscal year 2004. 

Because the Forest Service does not have a cost-accounting system, it 

allocates its budget according to potential indirect expenditures. The 

Forest Service has six cost pools, into which it allocates a percent of each 

of its budget line items for the fiscal year to be used to cover indirect 

expenditures during the year.17

BLM and the Forest Service also spent $14.6 million on range improvement 

activities in fiscal year 2004. These funds are revenues from grazing fees 

charged in 2003 and deposited as receipts in the agencies’ range 

improvement accounts. The agencies use the funds to pay for direct and 

indirect activities related to range improvement projects that include 

constructing fences, developing water sources such as tanks or 

impoundments, and seeding to improve vegetation and forage amounts. 

The expenditure of funds on these assets represents an investment in

16OMB defines those costs that can be considered indirect. We applied these definitions to 

the expenditures supplied by the agencies. OMB, Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts 

and Standards for the Federal Government: Statement of Federal Financial Accounting 

Standards Number 4 (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 1995).

17The six cost pools are General Management, Public Communications, Ongoing Business 

Services, Common Services, Office of Worker’s Compensation, and Unemployment 

Compensation Insurance. The General Management pool and some of the activities in the 

Common Services pool are considered direct or support rather than indirect costs. These 

are included in the estimate of direct expenditures.
Page 24 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

infrastructure assets that are the property of the United States.18 Under 

federal financial management standards, both BLM and the Forest Service 

are working to identify the value of these assets, which is currently 

unknown. 

The Remaining Eight 

Federal Agencies Spent at 

Least $3.4 Million on 

Grazing Programs in Fiscal 

Year 2004, but They Do Not 

Track All Expenditures

In fiscal year 2004, the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Reclamation, DOE, and the DOD services spent at least $3.4 

million on their grazing programs, as shown in table 4. Because it arranges 

with BLM to manage its grazing program, DOE incurs only incidental 

expenditures related to grazing. Because the agencies use grazing as a tool 

to support other management goals, they do not specifically track grazing, 

and hence do not track direct or indirect grazing expenditures. For this 

reason, the expenditures are the best estimates of individuals who manage 

the grazing programs. 

18In proposed regulations, BLM would allow cooperators (ranchers and others), subject to 

valid existing rights, to share title with the United States to permanent structural range 

improvements, such as fences, wells, and pipelines, where authorization is granted after 

February 6, 2004, in proportion to their contributions to the development and construction 

costs. 
Page 25 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Table 4: Estimated Expenditures by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Reclamation, DOE, and DOD on Grazing Activities, Fiscal Year 2004

Source: Agencies (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

a

Not all offices provided an estimate.

b

This total does not include $9,000 of expenses at Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska for 

operations approved for nonfederal use for grazing of reindeer; no fees are charged.

The field managers for these eight agencies identified the following 

activities associated with grazing on federal lands: fence installation and 

repair, cattle troughs, cattle guard installation, fertilizer, personnel, 

security, monitoring and inspections, control of invasive species and 

noxious weeds, and managing grazing leases. Generally, the estimates are 

low because they do not include all expenditures—including indirect 

expenditures—and several offices did not provide estimates. 

Agency

Number of parks, refuges,

projects, and installations

Estimated

expendituresa

Interior

National Park Service 31 parks $410,000

Reclamation 36 projects 91,000

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 94 refuges 1,099,000b

Subtotal 161 $1,600,000

DOE 1 site 1,500

DOD

Air Force 12 installations 377,000

Army 20 installations 717,000

Corps 64 projects 672,000

Navy 8 installations 39,000

Subtotal 104 $1,805,000

Total 266 $3,406,000
Page 26 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Other Agencies Have 

Grazing-Related Activities 

and Expenditures of at 

Least $8.4 Million, but Some 

Do Not Know Their 

Expenditures for Grazing on 

Federal Lands

In addition to the 10 federal agencies’ expenditures, other federal agencies 

estimated that they spent $8.4 million on activities that are related to 

grazing on federal lands. Agencies that have grazing-related activities 

include the following:

• several USDA agencies that provide research, insurance, resource 

management, and other agricultural services to farmers and ranchers on 

both federal and private lands; 

• Justice, the Interior’s Office of the Solicitor, and USDA’s Office of 

General Counsel, which perform legal services for BLM and the Forest 

Service; 

• the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which 

consult with agencies on threatened and endangered species; 

• the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which provides research on 

resource conditions on rangelands; and

• the Environmental Protection Agency, which provides grants to improve 

watersheds that may include areas with resources degraded by grazing. 

The agencies estimated, when possible, the share of their fiscal year 2004 

expenditures for grazing-related activities on federal lands, as shown in 

table 5. 
Page 27 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Table 5: Expenditures for Grazing-Related Activities by Other Agencies on Federal Lands, Fiscal Year 2004 

Agency Activity Expenditures

Agricultural services 

USDA

Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service 

Wildlife Services conducts control projects (hunting and trapping) 

for nuisance species and predators. Plant Protection and 

Quarantine conducts insect control on western lands in particular 

and has a Mormon cricket and grasshopper program that targets 

treatments in infested areas to prevent outbreaks.

$5,183,000

Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension 

Service 

Conducts education and extension services to help public agencies 

like BLM and the Forest Service and private landowners manage 

their range resources.

Not availablea

Farm Service Agency Provides operating, ownership, and emergency loans to farmers 

and ranchers. Also provides disaster assistance to livestock 

producers through various programs. 

Not availablea

National Agricultural Statistics 

Service

Conducts surveys of different farm sectors, prices, and products, 

including ranching, livestock, and cattle. Conducts specific surveys 

to produce data needed to calculate federal grazing fee.

$105,500 b

Natural Resources 

Conservation Service

Works with private landowners to conserve soil, water, vegetation, 

and other resources. Manages programs to conserve wetlands, 

land (easements), and water. 

Not availablea

Risk Management Agency Provides insurance products that may apply to federal lands and 

tools for making resource decisions. Developing a Web tool to 

assist mangers in applying prescribed burns to rangelands.

Not availablea

Subtotal agricultural services $5,183,000 b

Legal services 

USDA Office of General 

Counsel 

Provides legal advice and support for the Forest Service in 

managing its grazing lands and permits. 

$194,000

Interior’s Office of the Solicitorc Provides legal advice and support for agencies that manage 

grazing programs.

$493,000d

Justice Provides legal services such as litigating grazing-related cases. $159,000

Subtotal legal services $846,000

Consultations

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviced Conducts consultations to determine if grazing programs 

jeopardize terrestrial or freshwater threatened and endangered 

species, or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat.

$549,000

NMFSd Conducts consultations to determine if grazing programs 

jeopardize ocean-dwelling and anadromous threatened and 

endangered species, or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat.

$132,000

Subtotal consultations $681,000
Page 28 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Source: Agencies (data); GAO (analysis). 

Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

a

These agencies could not distinguish their expenditures on private and public lands.

b

The National Agricultural Statistics Service estimated its expenditures to be $105,500, the full amount 

of which was reimbursed by BLM and the Forest Service because the data produced are used to set 

grazing fees. Therefore, these expenditures are not included in the total.

c

The Solicitor’s expenditures include funds reimbursed by BLM for legal services provided to the 

agency. According to BLM staff, because the attorney provides services to BLM in general, the 

appropriate share of expenditures that should be applied to grazing is difficult to estimate. As a result, 

some of the Solicitor’s funds may also be counted under BLM’s expenditures.

d

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service noted that fiscal year 2004 was the first year that it implemented its 

cost-accounting system to capture these costs, and it has not yet determined the level of accuracy that 

the system will provide for distinguishing expenditures for various activities. While NMFS did not use a 

cost-accounting system to determine its expenditures, it estimated its expenditures using time 

estimates for specific employees that worked on grazing consultations in 2004. NMFS reported these 

data for the calendar year, not the fiscal year.

e

USGS estimated its fiscal year 2004 expenditures based on its 2005 budget figures; according to an 

official, funding has been stable.

Agricultural services. As the table shows, in fiscal year 2004, the largest 

amount of identified expenditures for grazing-related activities went to 

agricultural services provided by USDA. The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service spent most of these funds to control nuisance species 

and insects, such as Mormon crickets and grasshoppers, that affect forage 

on federal lands. Not all the agencies identified as having programs that 

might be used by ranchers with federal permits and leases could separate 

out the funds they spent on public lands. For example, the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service helps ranchers manage their soil, water, 

and vegetation to prevent the resources from becoming degraded; however, 

Research

USGSe Conducts research on the effects of grazing on plant communities, 

including invasive species; runoff and erosion; select species or 

species groups; and ecosystem health, including riparian areas. 

$1,350,000

Agricultural Research Service Conducts research on plant resources, forage, livestock, and 

grazing management, as well as natural resource problems such 

as invasive species. 

Not availablea

Forest Service Research Conducts integrated studies of grazing on public lands, which 

involves effects of livestock grazing on resources.

$368,000

Subtotal research $1,718,000

Other

Environmental Protection 

Agency

Provides grant money to states under section 319 of the Clean 

Water Act to improve watersheds by reducing nonpoint source 

pollution, including increased runoff and sedimentation from 

livestock grazing.

Not availablea

Total all activities $8,428,000b

(Continued From Previous Page)

Agency Activity Expenditures
Page 29 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

because the agency focuses on ranchers, it cannot distinguish the work 

that it performs on private land from work on federal lands. 

Legal services. Justice attorneys represent the United States in cases that 

go to court or settlement, while Interior’s Office of the Solicitor and USDA’s 

Office of General Counsel provide legal advice to the agencies. In addition 

to these expenditures, BLM and Forest Service staff provide support work 

for litigation in the form of copying and preparing administrative files and 

documents, but these expenditures are not tracked separately from the 

agencies’ other work. Legal services would include any payment of 

attorney fees; however, none were paid in fiscal year 2004. Attorney fees 

are usually paid by agencies, but in some cases would be paid from the 

Department of Treasury’s Judgment Fund.

Consultations. The federal agencies with grazing programs must consult, 

in some cases, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS to 

determine if their grazing programs pose any problem for threatened and 

endangered species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consults with the 

agencies on the potential effects to terrestrial animals and freshwater 

species, while NMFS consults with the agencies on the potential effects to 

anadromous fish—that is, fish that live in both fresh and saltwater. 

Research. USGS has four centers that conduct research on the effects of 

grazing on plant communities, including invasive plants; runoff and 

erosion, and other hydrologic and soil conditions; select species or species 

groups, including sage grouse, amphibians, grassland birds, and bats; and 

ecosystem health, including riparian areas. The agency works with federal 

land management agencies on these and related issues to inform 

management actions and plans and to design and implement rangeland 

monitoring and inventories. The Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain and 

Pacific Northwest research stations conduct integrated studies of the 

effects of livestock grazing on lands and resources and assist national 

forests and grasslands by providing them this information. Finally, USDA’s 

Agricultural Research Service has more than 100 laboratories in almost 

every state. The agency conducts research on ecosystems and sustainable 

management, plant resources, forage management, livestock management, 

and management of pests and weeds. Because the agency’s work benefits 

both the livestock industry and public lands, the Agricultural Research 

Service cannot estimate its expenditures related to grazing on federally 

managed lands. 
Page 30 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Environmental Protection Agency. The agency provides grants to states to 

improve watersheds and water quality that has been impaired by nonpoint 

sources of pollution, such as agricultural runoff. States use the funds to 

develop projects to remove or decrease sources of pollution. For example, 

New Mexico received funds to improve the Chama River and its tributaries, 

and the Santa Fe National Forest participated by conducting different 

vegetation and livestock management activities, such as fencing riparian 

areas, developing alternative water sources in areas away from the river, 

and ensuring the rotation of livestock into different pastures away from the 

river. However, because many grazing areas include both federal and 

nonfederal lands and because states are not required to track what type of 

land is involved in a project, Environmental Protection Agency officials 

stated that they cannot identify the funds that are spent on federal lands 

that have been grazed. 

Federal Agencies 

Collected About $21 

Million in Grazing 

Receipts in Fiscal Year 

2004—Less Than 

One-Sixth of the 

Expenditures Needed 

to Manage Grazing

The 10 federal agencies collected a total of about $21 million from fees 

charged for their grazing permits and leases in fiscal year 2004—less than 

one-sixth of the expenditures needed to manage grazing; the largest 

amount of funds, $17.5 million, was collected by BLM and the Forest 

Service. From the total amount, the agencies distributed almost $5.7 

million to states and counties, deposited almost $3.8 million in the Treasury 

as miscellaneous receipts, and deposited at least $11.7 million to separate 

Treasury accounts to be further appropriated or used by the agencies for 

their various programs. In addition, the DOD services received payment 

in-kind valued at almost $1.4 million to offset grazing fees, and Reclamation 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also received in-kind services. 

Reclamation received services valued at about $1,100, and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service received services of unknown value. The distribution of 

funds depends on the agencies’ different authorities.
Page 31 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

BLM and the Forest Service 

Collected About $17.5 

Million in Grazing Receipts 

in Fiscal Year 2004, 

Distributed About $4.8 

Million to States and 

Counties, and Deposited 

About $3.7 Million to the 

General Fund of the 

Treasury and Almost $8.8 

Million to Range 

Improvement Funds

BLM and the Forest Service collected about $17.5 million, or 83 percent, of 

all grazing receipts federal agencies collected in fiscal year 2004. As shown 

in table 6, depending on the authorities under which the receipts were 

raised, the funds were distributed to the states, deposited into the general 

fund of the Treasury, and deposited into special accounts in the Treasury 

for further appropriation and agency use, including use for range 

improvement.

Table 6: BLM and Forest Service Grazing Receipts, Fiscal Year 2004

Source: Agencies (data); GAO (analysis).

a

In fiscal year 2004, BLM also deposited $1.2 million in certain mineral receipts as funds for range 

improvements. The total funds deposited were therefore $7.1 million. 

Under FLPMA, 50 percent or $10 million, whichever is greater, of fees 

collected in a year for grazing on BLM lands managed under the Taylor 

Grazing Act and the Act of August 28, 1937, and on Forest Service land in 

the 16 western states, are to be credited to a special fund receipt account in 

the Treasury for range rehabilitation, protection, and improvements, called 

the range improvement fund. Half of this account is authorized to be 

appropriated for use in the district, region, or national forest from which it 

was generated, and the remaining half is to be used for range rehabilitation, 

protection, and improvement as the Secretary directs. According to agency 

officials, the agencies distribute 50 percent of the actual grazing receipts 

from their individual grazing accounts to their respective range 

Dollars in millions

Disposition of receipts

Agency Receipts

Receipts distributed to

states and counties

Receipts deposited

in the general fund,

Treasury

Receipts deposited

in Treasury range

improvement funds

BLM $11.8 $2.2 $3.7 $5.9a

Forest Service 5.7 2.6 Unknown 2.9

Total $17.5 $4.8 $3.7 $8.8
Page 32 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

improvement funds. As table 6 shows, in fiscal year 2004, BLM distributed 

about $5.9 million to its range improvement fund, and the Forest Service 

distributed about $2.9 million to its range improvement fund, for a total of 

about $8.8 million. BLM distributes grazing fees from four accounts, 

according to where the funds were collected—within or outside a grazing 

district or from grasslands. It also deposits certain mineral receipts into its 

range improvement fund; in fiscal year 2004, it deposited $1.2 million in 

mineral receipts. The Forest Service deposits receipts and distributes funds 

from its National Forest Fund that also contains receipts for other activities 

on forest lands such as timber harvest.

In addition to the receipts distributed to range improvement—under the 

Taylor Grazing Act, the Act of August 28, 1937, and the Bankhead-Jones 

Farm Tenant Act—BLM also distributes receipts from the four accounts to 

states and the Treasury, according to whether the fees were collected 

within or outside a grazing district or from grasslands.19 For lands within 

grazing districts—those lands on which grazing is permitted—BLM 

distributes 12.5 percent of receipts to the states in which the grazing 

districts are situated and deposits the remaining receipts in the Treasury as 

miscellaneous receipts. For lands outside of grazing districts—those lands 

that are leased—BLM distributes 50 percent of the receipts to the states 

and does not return any funds to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

For grasslands, BLM distributes 50 percent of receipts to the range 

improvement fund, 25 percent to states, and 25 percent to the Treasury as 

miscellaneous receipts. The states are to distribute the funds to the 

counties in which the lands are permitted or leased for school or road 

purposes. In 2004, the agency distributed more than $2.2 million to the 

states and counties and deposited more than $3.7 million in the Treasury.

Under the Act of May 23, 1983, the Forest Service distributes 25 percent of 

all of its receipts—timber, recreation, grazing, and others—to states for 

schools and roads. Alternatively, the states can receive funds under the 

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. This 

act sought to stabilize payments to states in which shared revenues from 

the federal lands, such as from timber, were dwindling. The act allows 

some counties and states to choose a payment equal to the average of the 

three highest payments for Forest Service receipts during a particular 

eligibility period. As a result, the Forest Service makes a mix of payments, 

19BLM also distributes funds from certain lands in Oregon and California under the Act of 

August 28, 1937, 50 Stat. 875.
Page 33 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

depending on what each county has chosen. In 2004, the Forest Service 

estimated that it distributed more than $2.6 million in grazing receipts to 

the states and counties; because the Forest Service deposits many types of 

receipts into the Treasury, it was unable to estimate the amount of grazing 

funds deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.

National Park Service, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Reclamation, DOE, and 

DOD Services Collected 

More Than $3.7 Million in 

Grazing Receipts in Fiscal 

Year 2004 and Distributed 

About $855,000 to States 

and Counties, Deposited 

About $65,000 in the 

General Fund of the 

Treasury, and Deposited at 

Least $2.9 Million in 

Separate Treasury Accounts

Grazing receipts collected by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Reclamation, and the DOD services totaled more than $3.7 

million in fiscal year 2004, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

generating the largest amount, more than $1.0 million. In addition, the 

agency received services in-kind of an unknown value. Under the 

interagency agreement between DOE and BLM, BLM retains grazing fees 

collected at DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory. The DOD services—which 

combined received a total of more than $2.0 million from fees—also 

received almost $1.4 million in payments in-kind that offset grazing fees. 

The agencies have different authorities for distributing the receipts 

collected from use of their lands. Table 7 shows the results of the 

distribution in fiscal year 2004. Of the $3.7 million in total receipts, more 

than $855,000 was distributed—by three of the eight agencies—to the 

states or counties in which the receipts were collected in fiscal year 2004. 

Two agencies deposited about $65,200 in the general fund of the Treasury 

as miscellaneous receipts, and each of the agencies deposited varying 

portions of the receipts for their programs.20

20The amounts distributed and deposited are greater than the amounts collected because the 

DOD military services have reimbursable programs in which they can collect and keep 

funds and use them to reimburse or fund their grazing and agricultural programs. The 

amounts spent do not have to equal the amount collected in any given year. 
Page 34 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Table 7: National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reclamation, DOE, and DOD Services Grazing Receipts, Fiscal 

Year 2004

Source: Agencies (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

a

Of the total, about $476,600 was collected as cash receipts, and about $1,100 was provided as 

services in-kind to offset fees. Of the $476,600, Reclamation collected more than $303,300, and the 

agencies that manage grazing permits and leases on Reclamation lands collected and distributed 

almost $173,300 to Reclamation. In addition to the $173,300 that they distributed to Reclamation, the 

agencies that manage grazing permits and leases for Reclamation collected and retained almost 

$108,500, for a total of almost $282,000.

b

Of the $476,600 collected by Reclamation in cash receipts, about $188,000 was deposited into the 

Reclamation Fund, and about $279,200 was retained by Reclamation to repay projects; agency 

officials could not explain where about $9,400 was credited. 

c

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service disburses all receipts for activities such as grazing, forest products, 

oil and gas, sand and gravel, and others from its National Wildlife Refuge Fund. Because the agency 

cannot separate out the disbursed funds by type, such as grazing, we used the percent that grazing 

funds made up of total funds to show the distribution. Grazing funds were 16 percent of the total funds. 

Disposition of receipts

Agency Receipts

Receipts distributed

to states and

counties

Receipts deposited in

the general fund,

Treasury

Receipts deposited in

special Treasury

accounts for agency

programs

Interior

National Park Service $196,000 $800 $2,500 $192,000

Reclamation 478,000a 0 0 478,000b

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1,029,000 541,000c 0 488,000c

Subtotal $1,702,000 $542,000 $2,500 $1,158,000

DOE d

DODe

Air Force $663,000 0 0 $773,000

Payment in-kind (offsets) (300,000)

Army 706,000 0 0 941,000

Payment in-kind (offsets) (211,000)

Corps 487,000 313,000 62,700 42,000

Payment in-kind (offsets) (301,000)

Navy 150,000 0 0 39,000

Payment in-kind (offsets) (562,000)

Subtotal $2,006,000 $313,000 $62,700 $1,794,000

Subtotal offsets ($1,375,000)

Total without offsets $3,708,000 $855,000 $65,200 $2,952,000

Total offsets ($1,375,000)

Total with offsets $5,083,000 $855,000 $65,200 $2,952,000
Page 35 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

d

DOE has an agreement with BLM to manage its grazing and therefore the grazing receipts gathered 

are included in BLM’s totals.

e

The military services’ programs are reimbursable in that the services collect funds and then use those 

funds to reimburse or pay for program expenditures. 

National Park Service. The National Park Service has the authority to 

recover its costs of providing services associated with its special-use 

expenditures. These reimbursements are to be credited to the current 

appropriation. Under National Park Service guidance, each national park 

retains funds to reimburse its expenditures for managing grazing and is 

responsible for calculating the amount of funding that it can recover.21 In 

fiscal year 2004, the parks retained about 98 percent of their grazing 

receipts and distributed about 1 percent to the Treasury. Two parks—Blue 

Ridge National Parkway and Point Reyes National Seashore—gathered 75 

percent, or about $146,000, of the total receipts. In addition to the amounts 

retained by the parks, the City of Rocks National Reserve in Idaho 

distributed about $800 to the state in fiscal year 2004 under a cost-sharing 

arrangement. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Under the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 

1935, as amended, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service deposits grazing 

receipts—as well as receipts it gathers for other uses of its lands—into a 

separate Treasury account called the National Wildlife Refuge Fund. The 

funds deposited remain available until expended, without further 

appropriation, and the Secretary may pay necessary expenditures incurred 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the account. The act also 

requires the agency to make payments to counties to offset tax losses for 

the purchase of fee title lands,22 based on a formula contained in the law 

that entitles counties to the greater of three amounts: (1) $0.75 multiplied 

by the total acres of fee title land in the county; (2) three-quarters of 1 

percent of the fair market value of the fee title land in that county; or (3) 25 

percent of the net receipts collected by the agency at that unit. The 

Secretary is also required to pay 25 percent of the net receipts collected on 

lands reserved from the public domain. In practice, the agency retains a 

portion of all receipts from its lands to pay for various administrative and 

21In a recent GAO report, we found inconsistencies in the cost recovery methods used by 

parks for some of their special use permits, the same type of permit used for grazing 

activities. GAO, National Park Service: Revenues Could Increase by Charging Allowed 

Fees for Some Special Use Permits, GAO-05-410 (Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2005).

22We use fee title land to refer to land that was acquired by the United States and is managed 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Page 36 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

refuge expenditures and provides the remainder to the counties. In fiscal 

year 2004, the agency collected more than $6 million in receipts for all 

permitted uses on its lands; and about 16 percent of the receipts were 

grazing receipts. After the agency retained $3.1 million for its use, it had 

about $3.5 million to pay to the counties. Because grazing receipts 

collected in fiscal year 2004 represented about 16 percent of total receipts, 

we estimate that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service retained about $488,000 

for its refuge system administration and distributed about $541,000 to 

counties.

Reclamation. Reclamation credits revenues generated from grazing leases 

in a number of different ways. For example, under specific project 

authorizations, Reclamation retains receipts to repay projects or deposits 

funds to be appropriated for future projects. Under Reclamation’s 

agreements with the agencies that manage leases on its land, grazing fees 

will be deposited into a Treasury account. When authorized by 

Reclamation, the fees may remain with the managing agency to serve as 

reimbursement. In fiscal year 2004, of the total amount collected for 

grazing on Reclamation land, about $303,300 came from grazing leases that 

Reclamation manages and about $173,300 came from leases managed by 

other agencies; the agency also received about $1,100 in services in-kind to 

offset fees. Reclamation deposited about $188,000 in the Reclamation Fund 

in the Treasury and retained about $279,200 to repay projects (agency 

officials could not explain into which of these accounts the remaining 

$9,400 was deposited). The other agencies that manage grazing leases on 

Reclamation land kept about $108,500 in grazing receipts. 

DOD. The Army, Air Force, and Navy do not return grazing receipts to the 

states or the Treasury, while the Corps is required to deposit all of its 

receipts—for recreation, grazing, or other leases of lands surrounding its 

water projects—in the Treasury; the Secretary of the Treasury is then 

required to return 75 percent of these receipts to the states in which the 

lands are located. The Army, Corps, Air Force, and Navy are authorized to 

retain and spend funds to cover the administrative expenses of their 

grazing programs and to cover the financing of multiple land use
Page 37 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

management programs at any of their installations.23 The Corps district 

offices began retaining and managing 10 percent of their receipts for 

administrative expenses in fiscal year 2004; agencywide, these receipts 

totaled almost $42,000. Under their leasing authorities, the Army, Corps, Air 

Force, and Navy collected more than $3.7 million in receipts and received 

payments in-kind valued at about $1.4 million to offset fees. The DOD 

services offset fees by allowing the lessees to work on the grazing lands to 

pay for a portion or all of the lease. For example, some of the grazing 

programs at DOD installations, projects, and bases allow the lessees to 

maintain fences or mow the lands, in addition to grazing, to reduce 

vegetation. The value of such services—and therefore the offset value—is 

either estimated by the staff in charge of grazing programs based on prior 

expenditures, prices from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, or 

bids submitted by the ranchers. 

Grazing Fees Charged 

by Federal Agencies, 

Western States, and 

Private Ranchers 

Varied Widely, 

Depending on the 

Purpose of the Fee and 

the Approach Taken to 

Set It

Fees charged in 2004 by the 10 federal agencies, as well as state land 

agencies and private ranchers, varied widely, depending on the purpose for 

which the fees were established and the approach to setting the fee.24 On 

BLM and Forest Service lands in the 11 western states, the grazing fee was 

$1.43 per AUM, while the fees on other federal lands varied from $0.29 to 

over $112 per AUM. In part, the BLM and Forest Service fee, which was 

initially set by legislation and was extended by executive order, enables 

ranchers to stay in production by keeping fees low to account for 

conditions in the livestock market. Most other federal agencies generally 

charge a fee based on competitive methods or set to obtain a market price 

for the forage on their lands, and some of them also seek to recover 

expenditures for their grazing programs. Similarly, state land offices in the 

17 western states and private ranchers seek market value for grazing on 

their lands; the state agencies charged from $1.35 to $80 per AUM, while 

23The agencies hold the funds in their suspense accounts until the funds can be either 

credited or obligated to the services’ respective grazing programs. A recent GAO report 

discussed accounting weaknesses related to the accounts. GAO, DOD Problem 

Disbursements: Long-standing Accounting Weaknesses Result in Inaccurate Records and 

Substantial Write-offs, GAO-05-521 (Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2005). To improve 

accountability, in July 2005, the DOD Deputy Chief Financial Officer directed that specific 

suspense subaccounts be used to capture receipts from grazing leases. 

24Grazing fees for BLM and the Forest Service are for the grazing year (March to February). 

All other federal agencies reported fees for the fiscal year. States predominantly reported 

fees for the fiscal year, although some reported fees for the calendar year. Private ranchers’ 

fees are reported for the calendar year.
Page 38 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

the average price private ranchers charged ranged from $8 per AUM in 

Arizona and Oklahoma to $23 per AUM in Nebraska. If the BLM and the 

Forest Service were to charge a fee for the purpose of recovering their 

expenditures, they could have charged up to $7.64 per AUM and $12.26 per 

AUM, respectively, in 2004. If they were to charge a market-based fee, the 

fee could vary but would likely not equal private or state fees. The prices 

charged by other federal agencies, states, and private ranchers may vary 

because of factors, such as range productivity, services provided by the 

landowner, and access to land. 

BLM and Forest Service 

Grazing Fee in Western 

States Is Lower Than Fees 

Charged by Other Agencies, 

States, and Ranchers 

Because It Was Established 

to Support the Western 

Livestock Industry 

The grazing fee BLM and the Forest Service charge in western states is 

based on a formula that was originally established by PRIA to, among other 

things, prevent economic disruption and harm to the western livestock 

industry; the formula expired after 7 years but was extended indefinitely by 

Executive Order 12548.25 Federal grazing fees are set using a formula to 

achieve multiple conflicting objectives, including achieving fair market 

value; recovering federal expenditures for the program; and treating 

different parties such as ranchers, the public, and other users of public 

lands equitably. As a result, the fee produced by the formula is generally 

lower than the fees charged by the other agencies, states, and private 

ranchers. Table 8 shows the fees charged by each agency, state, and private 

ranchers, as well as the approach to setting the fee—either a formula or a 

market-based approach. None of the federal or state agencies use an 

approach that strictly recovers their agencies’ administrative or 

management expenditures.

25The Taylor Grazing Act directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to charge 

“reasonable fees.” 43 U.S.C. § 315(b). A federal district court has determined that FLPMA 

did not alter this objective. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. Hodel, No. S-86-0548, 

slip op. at 3-4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 1987). The preamble to FLPMA states that it is the policy of 

the United States to receive fair market value for the use of public lands. However, FLPMA 

specially instructs the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to determine a fee that is 

“equitable to the United States and to the holders of grazing permits and leases,” which 

takes into consideration the costs of production along with other factors that may relate to 

the reasonableness of the fee. 43 U.S.C. § 1751(a). The IOAA similarly provides that fairness, 

public policy interests, and other interests and relevant factors are to be considered in 

establishing a fee.
Page 39 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Table 8: Fees Charged by Federal Agencies, State Land Agencies, and Private Ranchers, 2004

Agency

Range of fees charged

per AUM (or equivalent)a

Average fee charged

per AUM (or

equivalent)a Approach to setting fee

Interior

BLM b $1.43 Executive order—formula 

National Park Service $1.35 to $7.00

1.50 to 25.00 per acre

4.30 Fixed prices and market value

Reclamation 1.27 to 56.46 10.93 Market value and fixed prices

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 0.29 to 34.44 11.24 Market value and negotiated prices

USDA

Forest Service—16 western states b 1.43 Executive order—formula 

Forest Service—grasslands b 1.52 Formula

Forest Service—eastern states 2.47 to 5.04 b Formula and market value

DOE b 1.43 BLM fee—formula 

DOD

Air Force 1.35 to 26.67c 15.49 Market value

Army 0.99 to 66.09 c 19.10 Market value

Corps 0.82 to 112.50c 6.22 Market value

Navy 10.42 to 97.49c 32.60 Market value

States

Arizona b 2.23 Market-based appraisal with annual 

adjustment

California 1.35 to 12.50 b Market based on average rates

Colorado 6.65 to 8.91 b Market-based formula

Idaho b 5.15 Formula similar to federal fee

Kansas d dd

Montana 5.48 to 80.00 b Market with minimum bid

Nebraska 16.00 to 28.00 b Market with minimum bid

New Mexico 0.71 to 10.15 per acre b Market with minimum bid

Nevada d dd

North Dakota 1.73 to 19.69 per acre b Market with minimum bid

Oklahoma 7.00 to 16.00 b Market with minimum bid

Oregon b 4.32 Formula based on production factors

South Dakota 3.00 to 56.00 per acre b Market with minimum bid

Texas 4.16 to 12.50 b Market-based appraisal

Utah b 1.43 or 2.35 Formula similar to federal fee

Washington b 5.41 or 7.76 Market-based formula or formula based 

on production factors
Page 40 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Sources: GAO’s analysis of data provided by 10 federal agencies, 17 state agencies, and USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Note: The 11 western states used to calculate the BLM and Forest Service fee are Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The 9 

western and Great Plains states used to calculate the Forest Service grassland fee are Colorado, 

Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.

a

For permits and leases that are competitively bid, a total amount is often bid. In such cases, we 

divided that total by the amount of AUMs in the permit or lease to determine an equivalent fee per 

AUM.

b

Data are not applicable or available.

c

The ranges reported for the Army, Corps, Air Force, and Navy have been converted by dividing the 

total receipts plus offsets by the number of AUMs reported. The ranges are based on average lease 

prices for the installations, bases, and projects.

d

Kansas and Nevada do not manage grazing on state trust lands and therefore did not provide fee 

information.

e

The private rancher fees in the 17 states are calculated using AUM and per head data, adjusted. The 

formula is (AUM + per head)/2.

As shown in table 8, the fee BLM and the Forest Service charged for the 

western states in 2004 was $1.43 per AUM. The fee, which is set for each 

upcoming grazing year (March to February), is produced by a formula that 

consists of a $1.23 base value, multiplied by the sum of three indexes that 

are calculated each year by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics 

Service.26 These indexes are based on data collected in the agency’s 

livestock, prices, and cattle surveys. In effect, the fee is adjusted to reflect 

ranchers’ ability to pay. The $1.23 base value represents the difference 

between the costs of conducting ranching business on private and public 

lands,27 as computed in a 1966 study of 10,000 ranching individuals in the 

western states. The three indexes are the following: 

Wyoming b 4.13 Market-based formula

Private ranchers—17 statese 8.00 to 23.00 13.40 Market value

(Continued From Previous Page)

Agency

Range of fees charged

per AUM (or equivalent)a

Average fee charged

per AUM (or

equivalent)a Approach to setting fee

26The exact formula is: Fee = $1.23 x (FVI +BCPI – PPI)/100. The data used to calculate the 

fee are from the year prior to the year when the fee is charged. For example, the 2004 fee is 

based on data from 2003. 

27The base was calculated with the premise that the cost of conducting livestock grazing on 

private and public lands should be equal. Under this premise, the $1.23 base was calculated 

by totaling the costs of conducting livestock grazing on private lands, including grazing fees, 

and subtracting the total cost of conducting business on public lands, excluding grazing 

fees. 
Page 41 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

• Forage Value Index (FVI). This index is based on the weighted average 

estimate of the annual rental charge for cattle on private rangelands in 

11 western states. 

• Beef Cattle Price Index (BCPI). This index is based on the weighted 

average selling price for beef cattle in the 11 western states. 

• Prices Paid Index (PPI). This index includes select adjusted 

components from USDA’s Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Goods 

and Services. The components include items such as fuel, tractors and 

machinery, interest, and farm wage rates. 

Under both PRIA and the executive order, increases and decreases in the 

fee are limited to 25 percent per year, and under the executive order, the fee 

cannot drop below $1.35 per AUM.

The Forest Service’s fees for grazing on national grasslands and eastern 

forests differ from the fee charged in its forests in the 16 western states. 

The fee charged for grasslands uses a formula similar to the western 

grazing fee, but with a different base value that recognizes the different 

costs for managing national forests versus national grasslands. The fee 

charged for grazing in the eastern forests is based on a formula with a 

noncompetitively established base value adjusted by the current period’s 

hay price index, less the value of any range improvements required by the 

agency. The 2004 fee for grasslands was $1.52 per AUM, and the fee for 

eastern forests ranged from $2.47 per AUM in Florida to $5.04 per AUM in 

the northeastern states for noncompetitive permits. In addition, the Forest 

Service puts some permits up for competitive bidding in the eastern states.

Appendix IV discusses the BLM and Forest Service fee and formula first 

established under PRIA in more detail, the history of the federal grazing 

fee, and the results of studies conducted over the years to recommend 

alternative approaches to charging fees.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Reclamation, and 

DOD Services Generally Set 

Fees at, or Close to, Market 

Value 

In contrast to the fee charged by BLM and the Forest Service for grazing on 

western lands, the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Reclamation, and DOD services are required or directed to set fees that 

reflect, or come close to, market value. The agencies do not have one 

uniform approach to setting a grazing fee: some of the agencies, such as the 

Air Force and National Park Service, charge per acre; and others, such as 

the Corps, receive a total bid price for a pasture. To achieve a fair market 
Page 42 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

value, in some instances, the agencies use a competitive bidding process 

that involves notifying the public of the opportunity to permit or lease a 

grazing pasture, the acceptance of sealed bids, and the selection of the 

highest bid. In other instances, the agencies conduct a market appraisal of 

a grazing property, or use an average prevailing rate for the local area, and 

set a fee based on those values. Consequently, as the following discussion 

shows, the prices that the agencies charge vary widely, from as low as $0.29 

per AUM to more than $112.50 per AUM.28

National Park Service. The fees charged for grazing in fiscal year 2004 

ranged from $1.35 to $7 per AUM and $1.50 to $25 per acre. National Park 

Service guidance directs parks to charge fair market value for special uses 

such as grazing, unless otherwise directed by law. The fees charged in fiscal 

year 2004, which were set by individual parks or park units, included some 

fees set at market prices and others that were negotiated or fixed. The 

lowest fee per AUM, $1.35, was charged by several parks, including Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National Park in Colorado and Capitol Reef 

National Park in Utah. The highest fee per AUM, $7, was charged by Point 

Reyes National Seashore, in northern California. That park used an 

independent appraisal of its lands to establish the grazing fees. The lowest 

per acre fee in fiscal year 2004, $1.50 per acre, was negotiated at the Buffalo 

National River in Arkansas. The highest per acre fee, $25, was charged at 

several parks, including Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in South 

Dakota, which set its fee based on average local rates, and Eisenhower 

National Historic Site and Gettysburg National Military Park in 

Pennsylvania, which fixed their grazing fees, also based on average local 

rates. Similarly, Blue Ridge National Parkway, in Virginia and North 

Carolina, which accounted for just over 50 percent of total Park Service 

livestock grazing permits in fiscal year 2004, charged a rate of $10 per acre 

for each of its 212 permits. The fee was established using values in a 2002 

survey that the park’s staff conducted of other National Park Service field 

offices that administer agricultural programs, as well as market-rate 

information for grazing in the vicinity of the parkway that the park staff 

gathered from county extension and other agricultural offices. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The grazing fees charged in fiscal year 2004 

were, for the most part, established using market-value prices, including 

prices set by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service. Prices ranged 

28For fees that are competitive, a total amount is bid. In such cases, we divided that total by 

the amount of AUMs in the permit or lease to determine an equivalent fee per AUM.
Page 43 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

from $0.29 per AUM to $34.44 per AUM; both fees were based on 

competitive bids for grazing permits at the Sand Lake Wetland Management 

District in South Dakota, where access to small sites and forage conditions 

can vary greatly. Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations, refuges 

are to charge a fee for the grant of privileges or products taken from 

refuges that is commensurate with fees charged for similar privately 

granted privileges or products, or with local market prices. To establish the 

fees charged in fiscal year 2004, most refuges—particularly those in 

western states—issued permits at the market rate, including the USDA 

rate. For example, the fee charged at the refuge with the largest amount of 

grazing, the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge in Montana, 

averaged $14.76 per AUM. A few refuges did not use a market value fee but 

instead negotiated the grazing fee with the permittee. For example, 

managers at the Hutton Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Wyoming 

negotiated a fee of $8.80 per AUM, based on the USDA rate, less services 

for fencing and irrigation. 

Reclamation. In fiscal year 2004, the fees charged ranged from $1.27 per 

AUM to $56.46 per AUM. Reclamation guidance directs the agency to enter 

into permits and leases using competitive means when there is likely to be 

demand from more than one party, but permits and leases may be 

negotiated when it is in the best interest of the United States or if no 

competition is present. In fiscal year 2004, while the majority of 

Reclamation’s area offices set grazing fees using competitive approaches, 

or other approaches that establish a market price, some of the offices used 

fixed fees or negotiated with local ranchers to agree on a fee. For example, 

the Wyoming Area Office, which manages several projects in and around 

the state of Wyoming, used competitive bidding that opened with a 

minimum bid. The area office staff set the minimum bid using the average 

private lease rates in the state, as provided by USDA. One area office also 

used a discounted lease method, in which the office used an average 

private lease rate for the area and discounted it for factors such as multiple 

uses of the lands.29 When area offices charged fixed fees, they generally set 

29Reclamation area offices used different market-based approaches to set fees, including 

appraisals, a competitive method with a minimum bid, a limited method, and a discounted 

method. To establish market prices in instances in which competition is limited to ranchers 

that have access to the parcels involved, Reclamation area offices use a “limited” market 

approach to set fees, in which a permit or lease is competitively bid among the limited 

number of ranchers who have direct access to the grazing allotment. In those cases in which 

only one rancher has access to Reclamation land, the area offices may offer the permit or 

lease to the rancher at the minimum fee. 
Page 44 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

them at historic levels. For example, the Lahontan Basin Area Office, which 

manages Reclamation activities in the Lahontan Basin Area in northern 

Nevada and eastern California, manages 56 grazing permits and leases that 

were inherited from local irrigation districts and charged the same fee in 

fiscal year 2004 as the irrigation offices charged in the past. 

DOE. In its agreement with DOE to manage on Idaho National Laboratory 

land, BLM charges its current fee for grazing on DOE lands.

DOD. In fiscal year 2004, the Army, Corps, Air Force, and Navy, offered the 

majority of their leases as competitive bids. The bids ranged from an 

average of $0.82 to $112.50 per AUM. Under the laws and regulations for 

grazing on lands managed by the services, their lands may be leased for up 

to 5 years and payment for a lease is generally to be fair market value, 

although the payment can be made through services in-kind. The DOD 

services may accept less than fair market value under certain 

circumstances when it is determined that a public interest will be served. 

For example, Army officials recently negotiated a new 5-year lease for 

grazing at Fort Hood (in Texas) with a group of cattlemen that included 

some previous landowners. The Army determined that, although it had no 

legal obligation to continue leasing only to this group, its relationship with 

the neighboring ranchers helped to sustain its mission, meet its 

environmental stewardship responsibilities, and maintain its good relations 

with the community. In April 2005, the Army negotiated a grazing price that 

was 40 percent lower than the appraised value, pending a new appraisal 

that explicitly considered the unique military circumstances of grazing on 

the installation. The new appraisal, completed in August 2005, valued the 

lease at a price per animal unit that is 30 percent less than the fair market 

value assessed for other, similar grazing parcels to account for such unique 

military circumstances. 

See appendix V for details of federal grazing fees charged by these 

agencies. 

Private Ranchers and State 

Land Agencies Generally Set 

Fees at Market Values to 

Generate Revenues

Fees charged by private ranchers and state land agencies are higher than 

the BLM and Forest Service fees because, generally, ranchers and state 

agencies seek to generate grazing revenues by charging a price that 

represents market value for that land and/or the services provided. The 

average fee private ranchers charged in 2004 in the 11 western states was
Page 45 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

$13.30 per AUM and $13.80 per head of livestock,30 which represents 

market value, or the price that ranchers are willing to pay and receive for 

privately owned grazing lands in western states. This fee is determined 

annually through USDA surveys of private ranchers in 17 western states 

and is the average price ranchers (producers) reported as being paid in 

their area for privately owned nonirrigated grazing land. The National 

Agricultural Statistics Service calculates the average for each state, as well 

as for the 9 Great Plains states and different combinations of western 

states—11 western states, 16 western states, and 17 western states.31 As 

shown in table 9, the average private grazing fee for the states ranged from 

$8.00 per AUM in Arizona and Oklahoma to $23.00 per AUM in Nebraska. 

Table 9: Fees Charged by Private Ranchers and State Land Agencies in 2004

30The National Agricultural Statistics Service gathers data and calculates fees per AUM and 

head. The price per head is used in the calculation of the federal grazing fee and is 

equivalent to the AUMs used by BLM and the head months used by the Forest Service. The 

2004 data was used to set fees for 2005. Fees charged in 2003 were $12.80 per AUM and 

$13.40 per head.

31Generally, there are 17 states considered to be western. BLM primarily manages grazing in 

11 western states, and the Forest Service manages grazing for its forests in 16 western 

states, excluding Texas. 

State

State land agency

 (per AUM unless noted)

Average private fee

 (per AUM)a

Average private fee

(per head)a

Arizona $2.23 $8.00 $9.00

California 1.35 to 12.50 14.50 15.50

Colorado 6.65 to 8.91 13.50 14.00

Idaho 5.15 12.20 12.60

Kansas b 13.00 13.50

Montana 5.48 to 80.00 15.90 16.20

Nebraska 16.00 to 28.00 23.00 25.20

Nevada b 10.60 12.00

New Mexico 0.71 to 10.15 per acre 9.70 11.00

North Dakota 1.73 to 19.69 per acre 13.00 13.50

Oklahoma 7.00 to 16.00 8.00 8.50

Oregon 4.32 13.00 12.50

South Dakota 3.00 to 56.00 per acre 17.60 19.20

Texas 4.16 to 12.50 10.00 9.80
Page 46 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Source: State agencies and National Agricultural Statistics Service (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: The 11 western states used to calculate the BLM and Forest Service fee are Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The 9 

Great Plains states used to calculate the Forest Service grassland fee are Colorado, Kansas, 

Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.

a

The National Agricultural Statistics Service gathers data on fees per AUM and per head. The per head 

fee is used in the PRIA fee and, because of the way that BLM and the Forest Service measure AUMs 

for billing purposes, corresponds to the fee per AUM charged by BLM and the Forest Service.

b

Kansas and Nevada do not have grazing on state trust lands and therefore did not provide fee 

information.

In fiscal year 2004, state land agencies in 15 western states charged grazing 

fees that ranged from $1.35 per AUM in California to $80 per AUM in 

Montana and $0.71 per acre in New Mexico to $56 per acre in South Dakota; 

2 states did not charge fees because they do not have grazing on state trust 

lands. As table 9 shows, most states charged more than one fee: while 4 

states charged a single fee for all of their state lands, 2 states charged two 

fees and 9 states charged a range of fees, depending on market rates or 

based on counties or areas with variable vegetation. The agencies manage 

state trust lands to help pay for schools; the lands were set aside for this 

purpose when each state was created. Like the federal government, the 

western state agencies lease their lands for grazing, among other uses. 

According to Interior officials, unlike the federal government, the western 

state agencies have a fiduciary responsibility to obtain revenues from 

grazing fees on state trust lands to support schools and education systems. 

Of the 15 state agencies charging fees, 6 agencies used competitive 

methods to determine the fair market value of their lands in fiscal year 

2004; 6 used appraised prices or formulas to estimate the fair market value 

of their lands; and 3 used only formulas that do not start with a market 

price. Generally, the formulas adjusted the value of private grazing lands 

for different factors, such as the lack of fencing or water on state lands, or 

the price of beef. For example, Wyoming based its grazing fee on the 

average of private lease rates, as estimated by the Wyoming Agricultural 

Statistics Service, for the previous 5 years. The rate was then adjusted to 

account for changing resource conditions, market demand, and industry 

viability, and reduced by 20 percent to reflect contributions made by the 

lessee. (See app. VI for a discussion of the state fees.) 

Utah 1.43 or 2.35 11.80 13.10

Washington 5.41 or 7.76 10.80 10.80

Wyoming 4.13 13.90 14.30

(Continued From Previous Page)

State

State land agency

 (per AUM unless noted)

Average private fee

 (per AUM)a

Average private fee

(per head)a
Page 47 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

The Purpose of the BLM and 

the Forest Service Fee in 

Western States Is Not to 

Recover Expenditures or to 

Charge Market Value; 

Different Purposes Would 

Result in Different Fees

As we noted in our 1991 report on the BLM and Forest Service grazing fee, 

fees can vary depending on the purposes for which they are charged.32 The 

BLM and Forest Service fee is set in accordance with the policy of 

preventing economic disruption and harm to the western livestock 

industry. The primary purpose of the BLM and Forest Service fee is not to 

recover the agencies’ administrative expenses. Consequently, in fiscal year 

2004, the agencies spent $132.5 million to manage their grazing programs 

and collected $17.5 million in receipts, leaving a gap of about $115 million. 

If the purpose of the fee were to recover expenditures and if each agency 

were to charge a fee that recovered its expenditures, BLM would have had 

to charge up to $7.64 per AUM, and the Forest Service would have had to 

charge up to $12.26 per AUM in 2004, according to our analysis of the 

agencies’ estimated expenditures and the number of AUMs billed (7.6 

million AUMs for BLM and 6.1 million AUMs for the Forest Service). While 

many argue that fees for grazing on federal lands should recover the 

agencies’ expenditures, some grazing advocates argue that agencies’ 

expenses are high and reflect inefficiencies and that the fee should not 

encourage the agencies’ inefficient practices. 

The primary purpose of the BLM and Forest Service fee formula is also not 

to achieve fair market value prices. Instead, the fee was designed to reflect 

fees charged by private ranchers by including the forage value index, while 

also adjusting the value to reflect the net costs of conducting ranching 

business. It reflects net costs by including the beef cattle price and 

producer prices indexes (a measure of the change in income and 

production expenses). While initially, the base price used in the formula 

represented what Congress and economists considered fair market value, 

the adjustments included in the formula have resulted in a fee that has not 

tracked private fees.33 Consequently, while the fee charged by BLM and the 

Forest Service fluctuated up and down, it decreased overall by about 40 

percent from $2.36 per AUM in 1980 for BLM and $2.41 per AUM for Forest 

Service to $1.43 per AUM for both agencies in 2004. Private ranching fees 

32GAO, Rangeland Management: Current Formula Keeps Grazing Fees Low, 

GAO/RCED-91-185BR (Washington, D.C.: June 11, 1991).

33The definition of fair market value in relation to the fee is the $1.23 base value established 

in the 1966 Western Livestock Survey “added to the nonfee cost of operating on public 

grazing land so that the total cost of grazing on public land equals the total cost (nonfee plus 

private lease rate) of operating on comparable privately leased grazing land.” Departments 

of the Interior and Agriculture, Study of Fees for Grazing Livestock on Federal Lands

(Washington, D.C.: October 21, 1977), 4-3.
Page 48 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

increased by 78 percent over the same period, from $7.53 per AUM to 

$13.40 per AUM.34 The federal fee increased to $1.79 per AUM in 2005. (See 

fig. 2.)

Figure 2: Grazing Fee BLM and the Forest Service Charged, 1980 to 2005

Notes: The fee formula is Fee = $1.23 x (FVI + BCPI – PPI)/100.

In 1980, BLM and the Forest Service charged $2.36 per AUM and $2.41 per AUM, respectively, or on 

average, $2.38 per AUM. Prior to 1981, the agencies charged different fees for grazing—in 1979, they 

charged $1.89 per AUM and $1.93 per AUM, respectively. In 1980, the agencies used the PRIA 

formula to calculate their fees, but the formula produced a fee of $2.77, and PRIA limited the annual 

increase in the fee to 25 percent. The different fees charged in 1980 were a result of the agencies 

applying the 25 percent increase to their 1979 fees.

If the primary purpose of the formula were to produce a fee equal to market 

value, the fee would likely not be the same as that charged on private or 

state lands for two key reasons. First, because BLM and Forest Service 

permits and leases are not bid competitively, the fees associated with those 

permits and leases are not set in the market. In lieu of a market for BLM 

34The fee figures are presented in nominal dollars. 

Dollars

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (data); GAO (analysis).

Year

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

0.0
Page 49 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

and Forest Service grazing, the agencies could estimate the value of their 

lands based on comparable properties. However, it is generally recognized 

that private lands, which are leased at market prices, are not often 

comparable to public lands because the private lands have better forage 

and sources of water. The quality of forage and availability of water on 

state lands are considered more comparable to that on federal lands 

because the federal government granted some of its lands to various states 

when they entered the Union.35 In addition to differences in the quality of 

soil, forage, and water resources, private grazing fees differ from fees for 

public lands because private landowners often provide services that are not 

provided on BLM and Forest Service lands. For example, private 

landowners may provide daily livestock care—watering, fencing, feeding, 

and veterinary care—as well as maintaining fences, corrals, and water 

tanks. In addition, lessees of private land can themselves lease the land to 

other users, such as hunters, and generate revenue. Moreover, public 

access to private lands is limited, whereas access to federal land is 

generally not limited. State agencies also limit access to their lands, a factor 

that makes their lands less comparable to BLM and Forest Service lands for 

purposes of setting fees.

Second, market values are difficult to use for BLM and Forest Service 

permits and leases because the prices ranchers have paid for their private 

ranches often include the capitalized value of any associated federal 

grazing permits and leases—called “permit value”—and advocates state 

that ranchers have paid full market value for the grazing permits and 

leases, albeit not in the form of a payment to the government.36 Although 

Interior and USDA do not recognize grazing permits and leases issued by 

BLM and the Forest Service as a legal property right, the real estate market 

realizes the value of holding these permits and leases. As a result, it is 

generally recognized that while the federal government does not receive a 

35Originally, with the Land Ordinance, the number 16 lot of every township was reserved for 

that township. In 1848, the act establishing Oregon gave states in the Northwest territory 

sections 16 and 36 in each township. In 1894, Utah, followed in 1910 by Arizona and New 

Mexico, entered the nation with two additional sections reserved in each township, sections 

2 and 32. 

36Some believe that the existence of permit value indicates that the fee does not capture the 

full value of federal forage. However, recent research has shown that the value of permits 

may be capturing other values than the income earning potential of land. That is, despite the 

fact that ranchers assert that they are paying equal or higher total grazing costs on public 

versus private lands, they have been willing to pay an additional premium to buy permits to 

graze on public lands, indicating nonprofit motives such as quality of life, as reasons for 

ranch ownership.
Page 50 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

market price for its permits and leases, ranchers have paid a market price 

for their federal permits or leases—by paying (1) grazing fees; (2) nonfee 

grazing costs, including the costs of operating on federal lands, such as 

protecting threatened and endangered species (i.e., limiting grazing area or 

time); and (3) the capitalized permit value. Should the BLM and Forest 

Service charge a grazing fee that reflects market values, the ranchers’ 

investments could be reduced accordingly, which complicates the use of 

the market value of the permits and leases. 

Because of these difficulties in estimating and using market value, some 

grazing experts have suggested establishing a competitive bidding process 

for federal permits and leases, as has been done for the McGregor Range, 

an Air Force bombing range. BLM manages grazing on this range using 

competitive bidding to set prices. In 2004, BLM received fees ranging from 

$5.00 to $14.50 per AUM for several leases that it offered at auction. (See 

app. V for more details.) Experts acknowledge, however, that significant 

changes to the current grazing system would be needed to allow 

competition, with uncertain results. In particular, range experts and agency 

officials point out a potential increase in administrative activities and 

expenditures for items such as changing operators, start-up time, and law 

enforcement that could occur with greater BLM and Forest Service 

involvement in competitive bidding. In addition, some change in the 

preference system on BLM and Forest Service lands might need to occur to 

allow competitive bidding. However, some states have implemented a form 

of competitive bidding while retaining preference. For example, New 

Mexico allows ranchers with preference to meet the best offer that results 

from competing the lease. Finally, range experts and agency officials point 

out that the effect of competitive bidding on grazing receipts collected 

could, in fact, reduce receipts because some allotments could be less 

competitive than others, given their location and quality of resources. 

Others stated that increased competition could reduce the economic 

opportunities for some smaller permittees and lessees.

Concluding 

Observations

It is difficult to identify the full cost of grazing on federal lands. Many 

federal agencies have their own grazing programs, but other agencies 

support grazing in carrying out their responsibilities. Nevertheless, an 

analysis of federal expenditures and receipts provided by the agencies 

demonstrates that BLM and the Forest Service are spending much more on 

grazing than they are generating in receipts. Moreover, the existence of 

permit value indicates that while ranchers may have paid full value for 

grazing privileges, the agencies have not captured these payments in their 
Page 51 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

grazing fee. These shortfalls reflect legislative and executive branch 

policies to support local economies and ranching communities by keeping 

grazing fees low. BLM and the Forest Service are charging a fee that 

supports this purpose. 

The current fee for livestock grazing has not been changed significantly 

since it was first established a quarter century ago, largely because of 

controversy over the purpose of the fee and the role of grazing in 

contributing to ranching economies and communities and in degrading 

rangeland ecosystems. Although a budgetary analysis such as the one we 

conducted does not consider economic, environmental, or societal costs 

and benefits, it does demonstrate the need to periodically reexamine 

programs to assess their relevance and relative priority for a changing 

society, including how much of the program’s financing should be paid for 

by those who benefit most directly. Taking a hard look at existing programs 

and carefully considering their goals and their financing is a challenging 

task. However, faced with a growing and unsustainable fiscal imbalance, 

the government cannot accept all of its existing programs, policies, and 

activities as “givens.” Now, as in the 1990s, tightened federal budgets and a 

persistent federal deficit create the need to examine federal programs that 

spend more funds than they generate in receipts and to determine whether 

the purposes of these programs warrant increasing user fees. 

Although other federal agencies’ grazing programs are much smaller than 

BLM’s and the Forest Service’s, they demonstrate the application of 

competitive and market-based approaches to charging user fees for grazing 

programs and recovering some program expenditures. Depending on the 

approach taken to set and implement a grazing fee for lands managed by 

BLM and the Forest Service, the federal government could close the gap 

that exists between those programs’ grazing expenditures and receipts. But 

any change in the current fee may necessitate that Congress reconsider the 

purpose of the fee and policy trade-offs of different fees. In addition, an 

evaluation of the difficulties of implementing the chosen fee would need to 

be conducted in order to understand the consequences for the agencies’ 

programs and expenditures and to deal fairly with such issues as 

preference and permit value. 

Agency Comments We provided USDA, Commerce, DOD, DOE, Interior, and Justice with a 

draft of this report for review and comment. Interior and the Forest Service 

provided written comments (see apps. VII and VIII). DOD did not provide 

official written comments, but the Air Force and Army provided technical 
Page 52 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOE also did not 

provide official written comments but provided technical comments, which 

we incorporated as appropriate. Commerce and Justice did not have 

comments on the draft report.

In its comments, Interior did not agree nor disagree with the findings in the 

report. In general, the department stated that the report accurately 

recognizes that differences in resource conditions and legal requirements 

can cause variations in livestock grazing fees and pointed out the difficulty 

in capturing the costs of grazing programs. However, Interior stated that 

the report did not sufficiently discuss significant indirect benefits from 

grazing to other BLM programs that are difficult to quantify. We do not 

agree with this point. We believe that the report presents the facts about 

BLM’s grazing program as described in many different documents BLM 

provided to us and as discussed in multiple meetings. Interior also provided 

several specific comments clarifying the text of the report. These 

comments and our response can be found in appendix VII. In addition to its 

comments on BLM’s grazing program, the department enclosed technical 

comments on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Reclamation programs, 

which we incorporated as appropriate.

The Forest Service provided coordinated comments for USDA. The Forest 

Service neither agreed nor disagreed with the findings in the report. The 

agency stated that the report accurately recognizes that the Forest Service 

fee is set in accordance with an executive order that maintains the fee 

formula established in FLPMA, as amended by PRIA. Further, it stated that 

the report accurately recognizes that the fee is not related to the cost of 

Forest Service administration of the grazing program. In addition to these 

comments, the Farm Services Agency and the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service within USDA provided technical comments, which we 

included as appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 

days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this 

report to interested congressional committees; the Secretaries of 

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior; the Attorney 

General of the United States; the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; 
Page 53 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

the directors of the 17 state land agencies; and other interested parties. We 

will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 

or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Public Affairs and 

Congressional Relations may be found on the last page of this report. GAO 

staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IX.

Robin M. Nazzaro

Director, Natural Resources

 and Environment
Page 54 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

List of Requesters

The Honorable Nick Rahall

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Resources

House of Representatives

The Honorable Earl Blumenauer

House of Representatives

The Honorable Raúl Grijalva

House of Representatives

The Honorable Rush Holt

House of Representatives

The Honorable Jim McDermott

House of Representatives

The Honorable Christopher Shays

House of Representatives
Page 55 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

We provided information on the (1) extent of livestock grazing on, and 

program purposes for, land managed by 10 federal agencies; (2) amount 

spent in fiscal year 2004 by these agencies and other federal agencies that 

have grazing-related activities, to manage livestock grazing on public lands; 

(3) total receipts collected for grazing privileges by the 10 federal agencies 

with grazing programs and the amounts disbursed to counties, states, or 

the federal government; and (4) grazing fees charged by the 10 federal 

agencies, western states, and private ranchers, and the reasons for any 

differences among the fees.

We performed the majority of our work at the 10 federal agencies that have 

programs to allow private ranchers to graze livestock on portions of the 

land they manage. These agencies were the Department of the Interior’s 

(Interior) Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation); the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest Service; the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) Army, Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Air Force and 

Navy; and the Department of Energy (DOE). We also performed work at 

other federal agencies that have grazing-related activities. These agencies 

are Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Solicitor’s Office; USDA’s 

Agricultural Research Service; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, Farm 

Service Agency, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Risk Management 

Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Office of General 

Counsel; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Department of 

Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Service; and the Department of 

Justice. 

To determine the purposes of livestock grazing programs managed by the 

10 federal agencies, we reviewed authorizing legislation and agency 

policies and regulations, and we interviewed agency headquarters and field 

office officials. Through our review of legislation, policies, and regulations, 

we determined that we would not include Alaska in our analysis because it 

is treated differently under grazing law. We identified field offices to visit 

with the goal of visiting as many agencies as possible in an efficient 

manner. We visited at least one field office for every agency except for the 

Corps, Navy, and DOE. We visited BLM field offices in Medford, Oregon, 

and Las Cruces, New Mexico; a Forest Service office in Santa Fe, New 

Mexico; the National Park Service’s Dinosaur National Monument in 

Colorado and Utah; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Klamath Basin Wildlife 

Refuge Complex in northern California and southern Oregon; 

Reclamation’s Albuquerque Area Office in New Mexico; Cannon Air Force 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 56 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Base in Clovis, New Mexico; and Fort Hood Army Installation in Killeen, 

Texas. 

To determine the extent of grazing on land managed by the agencies, we 

obtained agency data for 2004 on acres and animal unit months (AUM). 

BLM maintains a centralized Rangeland Administration System that 

formally tracks and reports acres and AUMs on its lands as well as on other 

agencies’ lands (e.g., DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory and various 

Reclamation locations) where it manages grazing activity on behalf of these 

agencies. The Forest Service uses an information system, called INFRA, to 

centrally track and formally report acres, head months, and AUMs. To 

determine if the AUM and acreage data produced by BLM’s Rangeland 

Administration System and Forest Service’s INFRA system were 

sufficiently reliable for use in this report, we interviewed system managers 

about the processes used to manage the data in the systems and conducted 

a “walk-through” of the system with these managers. In addition, we tested 

the completeness and accuracy of a selection of AUM and acreage data 

using fiscal year 2004 system reports at the BLM field and Forest Service 

offices. We asked field office officials to provide us their 2004 report that 

specifically showed, by permit or lease, the number of AUMs authorized 

and billed and the fee charged. We reviewed all the files at agencies with 

smaller grazing programs—those with up to 25 permits or leases at an 

office—and selected 10 percent of files at the two agencies that had large 

grazing programs—250 and 500 allotment files per office. We then verified 

that the data in the systems were the same as data in the files by tracing the 

data through actual permit and lease documents, bills, and receipts 

showing that payment had been submitted. We determined—based on 

these reviews and, if necessary, follow-up interviews with local managers—

that the data reported were reliable for purposes of this report. 

Unlike BLM and the Forest Service, the National Park Service, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Reclamation, and DOD do not have similar 

management information systems that formally track and centrally report 

acres and AUM data on specific livestock grazing activities. For these 

agencies, we collaborated with agency headquarters and field office 

officials to design and test a data collection instrument tailored for each 

agency, which we sent to field offices. To design and test the data collection 

instruments, we visited several agencies’ field offices and followed the 

same process we used at BLM and the Forest Service to sample files, 

review relevant documents, track AUM data, and interview local officials to 

verify the completeness and accuracy of data that they could submit to us. 

We performed this work at the Dinosaur National Monument, Klamath 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 57 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Basin Wildlife Refuge Complex, Reclamation’s Albuquerque Area Office, 

Cannon Air Force Base, and Fort Hood Army Installation. To help ensure 

the reliability of the data we received from the agencies, we reviewed the 

data to determine whether they were complete and accurate. When we 

found data that were missing or appeared to be inaccurate, we called 

appropriate agency officials to discuss, and if necessary, correct the data. 

Based on these reviews and appropriate follow-up interviews, we 

determined that the data reported were sufficiently reliable for purposes of 

this report. 

To determine the expenditures the 10 federal agencies incurred in fiscal 

year 2004 to manage specific livestock grazing on federal lands they 

manage, total receipts collected for grazing privileges by these agencies, 

and the amounts disbursed to counties, states, or the federal government, 

we obtained agency expenditure, receipt, and disbursement data for fiscal 

year 2004. BLM maintains an Activity Based Costing System that centrally 

tracks and formally reports expenditures on livestock grazing activities, the 

receipts that grazing generates, and amounts disbursed. BLM officials used 

this system to identify the amount of direct and indirect expenditures the 

agency incurred for livestock grazing activities. The Forest Service does 

not have a cost-accounting system, but rather reports expenditures for 

items in its budget, called budget line items. The agency used expenditure 

reports for these line items, in addition to its WorkPlan system (which 

shows the forests’ intended work plans at the beginning of a fiscal year) to 

estimate the amount of expenditures on grazing activities in fiscal year 

2004. The Forest Service direct expenditures include expenditures from the 

Forest Service grazing line item, expenditures from its watershed and 

vegetation line item, and estimated expenditures from its General 

Management and other cost pools. Because the watershed and vegetation 

line item can be spent for all programs and not just the grazing program, 

the Forest Service allocated a portion of these expenditures—11 percent—

using WorkPlan, which is a tool for planning and budgeting program work 

at the forest level. The Forest Service uses six cost pools to allocate 

indirect activities and expenditures: General Management, Public 

Communications, Ongoing Business Services, Common Services, Office of 

Worker’s Compensation, and Unemployment Compensation Insurance. The 

General Management pool and some of the activities in the Common 

Services pool are considered direct or support costs, rather than indirect 

costs. These are included as direct expenditures. To estimate expenditures 

from its General Management and other cost pools, the agency attributed a 

share of the expenditures related to the amount of grazing and related 

watershed and vegetation funds that were put into the fund for the fiscal 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 58 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

year. We did not validate the data provided by the agencies’ or test their 

financial management and accounting systems. We did contact USDA’s and 

Interior’s Office of Inspector General and representatives of KPMG, a 

private contractor that annually audits the agencies’ financial statements, 

to determine if there was any reason we could not use expenditure data in 

this report. There were none. In addition, we reviewed the agencies’ 

internal controls over grazing receipts through our testing of the agencies’ 

grazing files and AUM data. 

Unlike BLM and the Forest Service, the National Park Service, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Reclamation, and DOD services do not all formally 

track and centrally report specific livestock grazing expenditures, receipts, 

and disbursements. Using the same data collection instrument described 

above to obtain acres and AUM data from these agencies’ field units, we 

also requested their estimates of expenditures and receipts. In addition, we 

asked headquarters officials to query their financial management and 

accounting systems in an effort to extract specific receipt and 

disbursement data related to livestock grazing activities. When necessary, 

we conducted follow-up interviews with agency headquarters and field 

office officials to ensure that the data were reliable enough for use in this 

report. We did not validate these financial management and accounting 

systems.

To identify livestock grazing expenditures that other federal agencies may 

incur to support livestock grazing, we first developed a list of agencies and 

activities that are conducted that are related to grazing on public lands. To 

develop this list, we reviewed reports about livestock grazing on public 

lands, interviewed BLM and Forest Service officials, and interviewed 

experts at the Society for Range Management,1

 as well as the author of a 

recent study on the costs of the federal grazing program.2

 We then 

contacted the agencies to confirm that the activities they conduct are 

related to grazing and are conducted on public lands; if the agencies 

conducted activities that support grazing on public lands, we then 

requested estimated expenditures for fiscal year 2004. To that end, we 

1

The Society for Range Management is an association of range management specialists that 

represents nearly 4,000 members. Its mission is to promote and enhance the stewardship of 

rangeland ecosystems and renewable range resources, with an aim to meet human needs 

through scientific research and policy. 

2

Karyn Moskowitz and Chuck Romaniello, Assessing the Full Cost of the Federal Grazing 

Program (Tucson, Arizona: October 2002).
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 59 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

contacted officials at USGS; USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service, Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension Service, Farm Service Agency, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

and Risk Management Agency; and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

We asked these officials to estimate, if possible, the expenditures they 

incur in support of livestock grazing activities. To determine agency 

expenditures on consultations for threatened and endangered species, we 

requested the data from the two agencies involved, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. To determine 

agency expenditures for litigation related to livestock grazing we contacted 

the Department of Justice, Interior’s Office of the Solicitor, and USDA’s 

Office of General Counsel. Their representatives estimated the cost of their 

time devoted to livestock grazing cases in fiscal year 2004 and identified 

that no payments were made for attorney fees in the same period. The 

National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reclamation, and 

DOD services reported that they were not involved in any litigation related 

to livestock grazing in fiscal year 2004. 

To determine the fees charged in 2004 by the 10 federal agencies, western 

states, and private ranchers and the reasons for any differences among the 

fees, we relied on several different sources. For the fees charged by BLM 

and the Forest Service, we contacted BLM and Forest Service officials, who 

provided us with 2004 fee and an explanation of the formula used to 

calculate the fee. We also discussed the formula and its components with 

the staff of the National Agricultural Statistics Service. We also reviewed 

historical studies of the formula and fees resulting from the formula. We 

gathered National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Reclamation, and DOD service fees using the data collection instrument 

described above and also gathered information on the methods used to 

establish the fees. For agencies that provided fee data as a per-acre price, 

we converted the fees to a per-AUM price by totaling the receipts and any 

offsets to receipts and dividing the total by the number of AUMs approved 

for use on that land. We reviewed agencies’ discussion of their user fees in 

their Chief Financial Officers’ Annual Reports, but we did not review the 

agencies’ compliance with the Independent Offices Appropriation Act or 

OMB Circular A-25, which lay out conditions under which user fees can be 

charged. 

To determine the fees that the 17 western states charged ranchers in 2004 

to graze on their state lands, and the basis for their fees, we conducted 

telephone interviews of program officials in the 17 states using a 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 60 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

semistructured interview format. To determine the fees private ranchers 

charged in 2004 to graze on their private lands, we used the results reported 

by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, which conducts a survey 

of, among other things, fees charged by private ranchers for livestock 

grazing on their private lands in the 17 western states. The agency’s staff 

calculates average fees for each state and the average fees charged in 

different groups of Great Plains and western states: 9 Great Plains states, 

11 western states, 16 western states, and 17 western states. We also 

interviewed the National Agricultural Statistics Service officials about the 

agency’s survey methodology for gathering data on private grazing leases 

and the calculation of the BLM and Forest Service fee components.

To identify additional factors that should be considered in evaluating 

federal grazing expenditures and fees, we conducted an extensive search of 

studies that go beyond a limited federal budgetary analysis of livestock 

grazing activities and attempted to identify social, environmental, and other 

economic costs and benefits that both advocates and opponents of grazing 

use to make their respective arguments. We also interviewed experts at 

New Mexico State University, Oregon State University, Colorado State 

University, and University of Montana who have conducted relevant 

research to obtain their views of these various livestock grazing issues, as 

well as issues related to fees.

We conducted our work between August 2004 and July 2005 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 61 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Appendix II

Additional Factors in Evaluating Federal 

Grazing Expenditures and Revenues ApendxiI

To place the budgetary evaluation presented in this report in a larger 

context, this appendix briefly discusses conflicting views on key effects of 

federal lands grazing: local economic development, rural community and 

quality of life values, and rangeland ecosystems and management. The 

purpose of the appendix is to present the conflicting views on grazingrelated issues and as such we did not verify the accuracy of the positions 

and statements presented by advocates and opponents of grazing. A 

comprehensive analysis of the effects should quantify and capture not only 

the budgetary expenditures and receipts discussed in this report but also 

the impact on regional and local economic development and the economic 

costs and benefits—which are often unquantified—to society. However, a 

comprehensive evaluation is not yet possible because, despite years of 

extensive research and evaluation, the exact nature of many of these 

effects is still unknown, unresolved, or unquantifiable. For example, 

opponents of grazing believe that grazing diminishes ecosystem values by 

reducing biodiversity and disrupting wildlife habitats, the lost value of 

which is borne by the nation and future generations and which the federal 

budget and agencies’ budgets cannot entirely capture.1

 On the other hand, 

advocates of grazing believe that the government and the public benefit 

from livestock grazing because it reduces the federal government’s cost for 

land management and contributes to preserving open space, both values 

that the federal budget does not capture. 

Implications of Grazing 

for Local Economic 

Development

According to grazing advocates, ranching on federal land is critical to local 

economies, particularly in the western states, and many small towns across 

the West that depend on local ranchers’ business would not survive without 

federal grazing. In these localities, many ranchers who rely on public lands 

could be driven out of ranching because, without access to public lands, 

their ranches would not be economically viable. In addition, studies have 

shown that grazing is beneficial to rural economies because it provides 

them with a more diverse economic base in conjunction with other 

compatible land uses, such as recreational activities.2

 Advocates also note 

1

To the extent that an agency’s budget allocates funds for monitoring, planning, and 

protecting the resources, these costs are reflected in their budgets. However, when the level 

of funds and activities are not sufficient to restore the resources, the damages remain a cost 

to the society.

2

David T. Taylor, James G. Thompson, and Tim Darden, “Rural Communities and the 

Changing Rangeland Users,” in Current Issues in Rangeland Resources Economics (Salt 

Lake City, Utah: Utah Agricultural Experiment Station and Utah State University, 2004).
Appendix II

Additional Factors in Evaluating Federal 

Grazing Expenditures and Revenues

Page 62 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

that while some economic studies indicate that grazing on federal land is of 

minimal economic importance, these studies only consider grazing’s 

dependence on public forage on an average annual basis and not on a 

seasonal basis. They point out that ranchers rely on forage from federal 

lands during certain parts of the year, particularly during the summer and 

fall grazing season, and that ranchers’ dependence on federal lands 

becomes quite important when only the grazing season is taken into 

account. 

In contrast, opponents point to studies showing that, for many of the 

western states, federal lands provide only a small percentage of the total 

forage needed to support ranchers’ herds and do not contribute 

significantly to local economic production and income. For example, one 

study that examined the reliance of ranchers on federal land in 11 western 

states showed that only $1 of every $2,500 of income (0.04 percent) earned 

in those states is directly associated with grazing on federal lands.3

 This 

minimal contribution also holds steady in more grazing-dependent 

counties, according to this study. Out of 102 such counties analyzed, only 

11 were found to have more than 1 percent of total income associated with 

grazing on public lands.

Implications of Grazing 

on Quality of Rural 

Communities and 

Rancher’s Life

The budgetary evaluation of grazing on public lands does not reflect the 

contribution of grazing to the quality of life in rural communities as well as 

the contribution to individual ranchers’ quality of life. Advocates point to 

the value of preserving the tradition and culture of rural ranching 

communities as an important contribution of grazing. These advocates 

believe that because federal land grazing at current rates provides the 

support ranchers need to stay in business, grazing prevents a growing trend 

toward urbanization and sprawl in rural areas. The development of ranch 

lands reduces the availability of open space for scenic pleasure and 

recreational opportunities, reduces wildlife habitat, and increases the 

infrastructure and tax burden on nearby communities. Further, federal 

managers point out that their support of ranchers and rural communities 

maintains a buffer around federal lands—for example, military lands—

preventing development along these boundaries. 

3

Thomas M. Power, “Taking Stock of Public Lands Grazing: An Economic Analysis,” in 

Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West (Washington, D.C.: 

Island Press, 2002).
Appendix II

Additional Factors in Evaluating Federal 

Grazing Expenditures and Revenues

Page 63 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Similarly, grazing advocates point out the importance of grazing to the 

quality of life for individual ranchers, which is another factor not captured 

by a budgetary analysis. Studies have documented the importance of 

quality of life (consumptive value) in ranchers’ decisions to purchase or 

remain in business despite economic pressures. These studies have 

compared the future earning potential of the land from ranching with the 

market values for ranches in many rural communities and found that 

ranchers have been willing to accept rates of return on their investment 

that are below market value, which indicates that the desire to own a ranch 

is not motivated entirely by profit, but also by the less tangible benefit on 

the quality of life that the rural lifestyle offers.4

While the contribution of ranching to the quality of life and well being of a 

segment of society is widely recognized, grazing opponents question the 

role of the government in protecting ranchers’ social or economic way of 

life at a cost to all taxpayers. In the opponents’ view, preserving the 

heritage of “western cowboys” by allowing them the use of public lands is a 

subsidy to the livestock industry. The opponents question the use of 

continuing subsidies, rather than a functioning free market, and question 

the choice of subsidizing one lifestyle or chosen profession over another—

for example, teachers.

Opponents also disagree with the argument that grazing subsidies are 

essential to preserving open spaces and stopping development. They point 

out that many factors, such as an individual rancher’s wealth and 

commitment to ranching as a way of life, will ultimately influence the 

decision to continue ranching. Population growth and demand for housing 

will widen the disparity in land values between grazing and development 

and put some ranchers—especially those facing financial pressures—in a 

position to sell. However, opponents note that the replacement of cows 

with condominiums is not a foregone result of changes in grazing policy. 

Subdividing and developing ranch land is primarily driven by market 

conditions—demand—for the land, and market conditions for subdividing 

the ranch lands is far from uniform across the West. For example, it would 

not be economically feasible to develop lands in some remote areas of the 

West. However, acknowledging the reality of development of the ranch 

4

Studies have also shown that despite equal or higher total grazing costs on public versus 

private lands ranchers have been willing to pay an additional premium to buy permits to 

graze on public lands that supports the quality of life and nonprofit motives for ranch 

ownership.
Appendix II

Additional Factors in Evaluating Federal 

Grazing Expenditures and Revenues

Page 64 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

lands in some geographic areas, opponents believe that subsidized grazing 

on public lands is neither an efficient nor an effective means of preserving 

open spaces. They recommend other tools, such as zoning regulations or 

land purchases through conservation trusts, to more effectively protect the 

land from urban sprawl and development. 

Implications of Grazing 

for Rangeland 

Ecosystems and 

Management

According to grazing advocates, ranchers are the principal managers of 

federal land, and if they cease operation, federal agencies would have to 

pay others to manage these lands, thereby raising budgetary costs to the 

government. By grazing the land, ranchers help to maintain rangeland 

ecosystems—particularly those east of the Rocky Mountains—that 

developed historically and naturally with herbivory by wild animals such as 

buffalo, antelope, deer, and elk. According to advocates, grazing also helps 

to manage weeds, including invasive plant species, and control fires by 

preventing excessive biomass buildup or by reducing the intensity of fires 

that do start—expenses that would otherwise shift to federal agencies. For 

example, advocates maintain that sheep grazing reduces the need to use 

herbicides on the range because the sheep eat noxious plants that other 

animals avoid.5

 Advocates also contend that ranchers provide a valuable 

service to federal agencies by reporting problems on public lands, such as 

fires and illegal activities, and assisting in search-and-rescue operations. 

Furthermore, grazing advocates assert that modern rangeland management 

facilitates the maintenance and health of the land because ranchers 

understand the science behind ranching and make decisions that preserve 

and improve the health of the rangeland, including wildlife habitat.6

 In 

general, they point to the increased number of wildlife and game animals in 

recent years on the lands with ranch and water developments. For 

example, one study has shown that biodiversity for vegetation and animals 

is higher on rangelands managed for grazing than on small ranches.7

 They 

5

See for example “Sheep and the Environment: The Facts on Sheep Ecology,” prepared by 

American Sheep Industry Association, 2005. 

6

See for example, “Cattle and Beef Handbook: Environment,” National Cattlemen’s Beef 

Association; www.beef.org/ncbenviroment.aspx.

7

The study is based on a random survey of land outside urban areas and represents the rural 

land-use gradient, including preserves, ranches, and low-density development. Jeremy D. 

Maestas, Richard L. Knight, and Wendell C. Gilgert, “Biodiversity Across a Rural Land-Use 

Gradient,” Conservation Biology, Vol. 17, No. 5 (October 2003).
Appendix II

Additional Factors in Evaluating Federal 

Grazing Expenditures and Revenues

Page 65 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

say that water improvements made by ranchers are the reason behind 

enhanced wildlife habitat and numbers and contribute to lower 

maintenance costs by the agencies.8

To the contrary, grazing opponents argue that grazing has contributed to, 

and increased the amount of, the federal government’s land management 

costs. For example, they note, by eliminating grass and low-lying 

vegetation in ponderosa pine forests, grazing has contributed to increased 

density of conifer trees and shrubs and made these forests more prone to 

large, intense fires that are costly to fight. Grazing opponents also note that 

grazing contributes to the spread of invasive species, thereby increasing 

agencies’ costs for managing their rangelands. For example, opponents 

state that livestock transport seeds; weaken and remove native plants, such 

as grasses; disturb the soil; and help invasive species to take hold and grow.

Grazing opponents also note that grazing in general and overgrazing in 

particular, have harmed plants and wildlife on federal lands by exposing 

soils to erosion, disrupting normal wildlife behavior, and reducing 

biodiversity. For example, an environmental group states that grazing has 

contributed to the listing of 22 percent of federal threatened and 

endangered species.9

 Furthermore, livestock can be detrimental to native 

wildlife because they can transmit diseases, compete for food, disrupt 

normal behavior patterns, or damage habitat.10 For example, because some 

invasive plants can better tolerate intensive grazing than most native 

plants, they can prosper and drive out other native plants. The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service has argued that grazing can cause habitat degradation 

and disrupt normal behavior patterns of wildlife such as breeding, feeding,

8

Interview with Sam Albrecht, Executive Vice President, Society for Range Management, et 

al., Lakewood, Colorado, September 2004. 

9

See for example www.sierraclub.org/grazing, based on the work by D.S. Wilcove, D. 

Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, E. Losos, “Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the 

United States,” BioScience, Vol. 48, No. 8 (August 1998).

10In general, an economically efficient mix of uses requires adjusting the size and mixture of 

livestock and wildlife relative to the values these different animals provide. In one article 

comparing value of forage on public lands for wildlife and livestock uses, the authors 

concluded that the marginal value of forage for deer and elk is competitive with the forage 

value for cattle ranching in Challis, Idaho area. John Loomis, Dennis Donnelly, and Cindy 

Sorg-Swanson, “Comparing the Economic Value of Forage on Public Lands for Wildlife and 

Livestock,” Journal of Range Management, Vol. 42, No. 2 (March 1989). 
Appendix II

Additional Factors in Evaluating Federal 

Grazing Expenditures and Revenues

Page 66 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

or sheltering.11 For example, livestock management practices, such as 

fencing rangelands, can create obstacles for many native wildlife species, 

limiting their movement in search of food and shelter. Similarly, livestock 

protection has played a large role in eliminating native predators, which are 

often killed by private ranchers or federal agencies to protect the livestock. 

Finally, the opponents note that livestock grazing is also a threat to water 

quality when, for example, the livestock trample stream banks, causing 

them to erode and increase sedimentation or spread infectious water-borne 

diseases to water supplies.12

11See, e.g., Arizona Cattle Growers Assn. v. Fish and Wildlife Service, 273 F. 3d 1229 (2001) 

(The court found that the record did not support the FWS claims in this particular case.) But 

see, e.g., Palila v. Hawaii Dept of Land and Natural Resources, 852 F.2d 1106, (9th. Cir. 

1988) (sheep grazing constituted a “taking” of palila birds under the Endangered Species 

Act, since although sheep do not destroy full-grown mamane trees, they do destroy mamane 

seedlings, which will grow to full-grown trees, on which the palila feeds and nests).

12Lynn Jacobs, Waste of the West: Public Lands Ranching (Tucson, Arizona: 1991). 
Page 67 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Appendix III

Detailed Grazing Data for Bureau of Land 

Management and the Forest Service ApendxiI

This appendix provides detailed information on grazing permits and leases 

on lands managed by BLM and the Forest Service. The first section of this 

appendix provides information on acres available for grazing on lands the 

agencies manage, the AUMs approved for grazing, and the AUMs billed in 

fiscal year 2004 for BLM and grazing year 2004 for the Forest Service. The 

second section categorizes BLM and Forest Service permits and leases by 

size.

Acres and AUMs of 

Grazing

This section provides a snapshot of the grazing that occurred on BLM and 

Forest Service lands in 2004. The acres of BLM and Forest Service land 

available for grazing each year can change, depending on the results of 

environmental assessments conducted on grazing allotments; and the 

amount of grazing that is allowed each year can change, depending on 

annual assessments of forage and range conditions. Both agencies measure 

the number of acres of their lands available for grazing by allotment each 

year, but the two agencies use different terms to measure the amount of 

grazing. BLM calls this amount “active” or “authorized,” and the Forest 

Service calls this amount “permitted.” Similarly, BLM refers to the amount 

of grazing that it bills for annually—which can vary from the amount it 

authorizes because of range or climate conditions—as “billed,” and the 

Forest Service refers to this amount of grazing as “authorized.” We use the 

term “AUMs Approved” to refer to the amounts of grazing authorized by 

BLM and permitted by the Forest Service and “AUMs Billed” to refer to the 

amount of grazing for which BLM billed ranchers and the amount of grazing 

authorized each year on Forest Service lands. Table 10 shows the acres, 

AUMs approved, and AUMs grazed for BLM’s field offices in fiscal year 

2004. 
Appendix III

Detailed Grazing Data for Bureau of Land 

Management and the Forest Service

Page 68 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Table 10: BLM Data on Acres and AUMs, by Field Office for Fiscal Year 2004

State Acres AUMs approved AUMs billed

Arizona

Arizona Strip 2,250,219 179,463 76,785

Kingman 1,959,713 141,983 78,091

Phoenix North 1,958,357 117,487 73,945

Safford 1,114,283 133,786 86,636

Tucson 481,936 57,272 35,754

Yuma 190,348 29,924 2,751

Subtotal 7,954,856 659,915 353,962

California

Alturas 361,107 52,517 26,943

Arcata 27,904 3,389 2,137

Bakersfield 243,757 95,407 23,981

Barstow 612,013 9,154 5,873

Bishop 307,036 36,466 9,416

Eagle Lake 971,096 51,937 28,968

El Centro 30,949 2,047 1,033

Folsom 36,073 5,184 3,995

Hollister 108,893 27,958 12,410

Needles 631,222 18,451 3,695

Palm Springs - South Coast 74,887 3,790 1,652

Redding 27,716 5,902 5,811

Ridgecrest 829,818 15,680 12,682

Surprise 1,399,562 92,335 56,975

Ukiah 10,290 788 650

Subtotal 5,672,323 421,005 196,221

Colorado

Canyon Ancients National Monument 139,120 9,241 2,963

Columbine 23,559 2,598 1,956

Dolores 335,872 23,052 9,832

Glenwood Springs 446,724 45,806 27,933

Grand Junction 982,731 112,829 28,564

Gunnison 349,141 36,262 14,198

Kremmling 276,603 35,317 24,762

La Jara 139,890 13,386 2,836

Little Snake 1,231,411 144,685 70,339
Appendix III

Detailed Grazing Data for Bureau of Land 

Management and the Forest Service

Page 69 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Pagosa Springs 2,841 457 276

Royal Gorge 392,456 33,674 15,547

Saguache 174,665 17,149 6,266

Uncompahgre 668,685 52,349 19,049

White River 1,428,982 128,145 86,548

Subtotal 6,592,680 654,950 311,069

Idaho

Bruneau 1,392,635 128,355 94,329

Burley 826,791 140,823 88,984

Challis 660,597 52,357 28,568

Cottonwood 88,852 6,210 5,237

Four Rivers 1,063,834 144,925 95,414

Jarbridge 1,480,906 190,256 140,764

Owyhee 1,197,199 123,071 95,608

Pocatello 532,269 85,774 66,790

Salmon 427,273 65,605 44,035

Shoshone 1,491,667 208,121 108,784

Upper Snake River 1,593,666 206,686 130,030

Subtotal 10,755,689 1,352,183 898,543

Montana

Billings 312,738 55,044 45,023

Butte 228,267 23,809 17,313

Dillon 793,268 109,913 63,888

Glasgow 990,870 144,782 135,472

Havre 564,309 90,819 69,894

Lewistown 791,289 125,777 119,232

Malta 1,040,872 176,069 155,459

Miles City 2,712,286 550,211 490,444

Missoula 80,703 5,273 5,190

North Dakota 51,537 9,216 9,610

South Dakota 272,392 75,154 66,658

Subtotal 7,838,531 1,366,067 1,178,183

New Mexico

Carlsbad 1,891,062 380,988 229,359

Farmington 1,171,014 121,231 75,075

Las Cruces 4,299,298 632,369 355,623

Rio Puerco 864,392 132,469 76,336

(Continued From Previous Page)

State Acres AUMs approved AUMs billed
Appendix III

Detailed Grazing Data for Bureau of Land 

Management and the Forest Service

Page 70 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Roswell 1,487,960 328,005 204,781

Socorro 1,476,144 229,544 172,444

Taos 343,225 44,776 20,760

Subtotal 11,533,095 1,869,382 1,134,378

Nevada

Battle Mountain 6,174,963 260,745 168,679

Carson City 3,340,103 171,291 69,430

Elko 6,751,609 708,016 383,798

Ely 10,412,518 523,504 177,090

Las Vegas 166,391 0a 2,311

Tonopah 4,621,982 130,435 57,207

Winnemucca 7,863,246 335,494 216,972

Subtotal 39,330,812 2,129,485 1,075,487

Oregon

Andrews 1,635,153 96,337 71,972

Ashland 115,388 9,002 7,233

Baker 372,139 50,117 40,137

Border 88,125 12,161 9,906

Butte Falls 76,186 5,100 2,547

Central Oregon 425,877 64,348 20,793

Coos Bay 541 49 14

Deschutes 543,228 56,417 26,630

Jordan 2,507,713 186,221 154,751

Klamath Falls 172,184 13,401 10,252

Lakeview 2,865,315 164,536 111,535

Malheur 2,070,694 226,719 158,352

Roseburg 11,879 743 0

Three Rivers 1,743,822 153,086 105,797

Wenatchee 158,093 19,810 20,211

Subtotal 12,786,337 1,058,047 740,130

Utah

Cedar City 1,853,636 148,428 66,747

Fillmore 4,160,071 262,063 138,351

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument 1,301,225 75,544 17,009

Kanab 234,400 18,416 5,946

Moab 1,559,695 89,426 28,837

Monticello 1,991,216 78,649 35,707

(Continued From Previous Page)

State Acres AUMs approved AUMs billed
Appendix III

Detailed Grazing Data for Bureau of Land 

Management and the Forest Service

Page 71 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Source: BLM (data); GAO (analysis).

a

Permits can be issued for ephemeral rangeland, which refers to areas of the Hot Desert region that do 

not consistently produce enough forage to sustain a livestock operation, but from time to time, produce 

sufficient forage to accommodate livestock grazing. Such permits do not have AUMs designated, but 

grazing is approved and billed.

Table 11 shows the acres of grazing available, approved AUMs, and billed 

AUMs in grazing year 2004 for Forest Service administrative offices and 

grasslands.1

 The data on acres include acres in active and vacant allotments 

but not allotments that have been closed that are not available for grazing. 

The data on AUMs include data that the Forest Service calls “head months.” 

Unlike BLM, the Forest Service uses two methods to tally the amount of 

grazing that occurs—AUMs and head months. The agency uses the term 

AUM to refer to the amount of forage grazed by livestock, while it uses the 

term head months to refer to the number of livestock (head) that are grazed 

and that are subject to billing. We used the Forest Service head month data 

Price 1,921,523 100,267 35,568

Richfield 2,126,747 103,553 45,484

Salt Lake 2,215,951 175,066 116,318

St. George 470,103 28,428 10,853

Vernal 1,486,240 149,493 52,602

Subtotal 19,320,807 1,229,333 553,422

Wyoming

Buffalo 734,825 104,536 99,081

Casper 1,268,671 183,046 163,232

Cody 653,735 78,981 30,229

Kemmerer 1,449,185 152,469 111,661

Lander 2,243,482 275,961 162,731

Newcastle 284,741 48,854 47,733

Pinedale 934,802 106,574 63,265

Rawlins 3,044,835 457,546 267,651

Rock Springs 3,553,435 306,755 137,876

Worland 1,748,793 236,064 109,591

Subtotal 15,916,504 1,950,786 1,193,050

Total 137,701,634 12,691,153 7,634,445

(Continued From Previous Page)

State Acres AUMs approved AUMs billed

1

The Forest Service has 123 administrative offices, which manage 155 proclaimed national 

forests and 20 national grasslands. National grasslands are listed under the administrative 

units with which they are associated. 
Appendix III

Detailed Grazing Data for Bureau of Land 

Management and the Forest Service

Page 72 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

because they are equivalent to the BLM’s data on AUMs, but we used the 

term AUM to simplify the comparison with BLM and other agencies’ 

grazing data.

Table 11: Forest Service Data on Acres and AUMs, by Forest and Grassland, Grazing Year 2004

Regions Acresa AUMs approvedb AUMs billedb

Region 1, Northern Region

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 2,446,004 200,149 169,055

Bitterroot National Forest 227,390 4,546 3,017

Idaho Panhandle National Forest 78,453 5,208 5,208

Clearwater National Forest 179,257 9,339 6,167

Custer National Forest 687,942 164,343 150,927

Dakota Prairie National Grasslands (includes Cedar River, Grand 

River, Little Missouri, and Sheyenne National Grasslands) 1,250,080 517,929 56,927

Flathead National Forest 126,006 2,145 1,872

Gallatin National Forest 598,711 30,646 23,434

Helena National Forest 505,681 38,228 29,199

Kootenai National Forest 362,669 5,946 5,490

Lewis and Clark National Forest 844,064 75,990 56,502

Lolo National Forest 296,898 5,251 3,266

Nez Perce National Forest 665,191 35,753 27,845

Subtotal 8,268,346 1,095,473 538,909

Region 2, Rocky Mountain Region

Bighorn National Forest 963,772 123,734 94,722

Black Hills National Forest 1,211,319 87,449 85,925

Grand Mesa Uncompaghre Gunnison National Forest 2,780,322 276,365 224,602

Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest 1,797,144 298,774 263,066

Thunder Basin National Grassland 722,494 138,360 136,250

Nebraska National Forest (includes Fort Pierre National 

Grassland) 200,793 68,759 65,646

Oglala and Buffalo Gap National Grasslands 829,380 230,051 184,625

Rio Grande National Forest 1,560,430 86,516 69,530

Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest 514,286 11,555 7,713

Pawnee National Grassland 198,041 82,445 28,025

Pike-San Isabel National Forest 1,125,780 27,148 15,740

Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands 528,096 116,758 92,781

San Juan National Forest 2,012,944 141,230 97,290
Appendix III

Detailed Grazing Data for Bureau of Land 

Management and the Forest Service

Page 73 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Shoshone National Forest 1,227,788 51,836 35,691

White River National Forest 1,456,895 186,136 162,582

Subtotal 17,129,484 1,927,116 1,564,188

Region 3, Southwestern Region

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest 1,877,307 209,723 95,165

Carson National Forest 1,657,436 113,326 80,901

Cibola National Forest (includes McClellan Creek National 

Grassland) 1,500,254 111,514 70,445

Black Kettle, Kiowa, and Rita Blanca National Grasslands 256,297 215,376 84,573

Coconino National Forest 1,707,982 168,932 115,549

Coronado National Forest 1,334,461 286,472 145,191

Gila National Forest 2,966,004 269,696 146,634

Kaibab National Forest 1,440,927 89,886 47,632

Lincoln National Forest 917,050 103,918 49,622

Prescott National Forest 1,215,178 128,531 26,219

Santa Fe National Forest 1,405,045 74,958 56,322

Tonto National Forest 2,629,757 279,697 40,804

Subtotal 18,907,698 2,052,029 959,057

Region 4, Intermountain Region

Ashley National Forest 1,055,123 104,884 61,174

Boise National Forest 1,449,325 92,149 97,243

Bridger-Teton National Forest 2,254,437 372,658 191,925

Dixie National Forest 1,732,152 119,042 91,217

Fishlake National Forest 1,421,228 125,088 102,126

Manti-LaSal National Forest 1,311,426 252,396 190,391

Payette National Forest 1,009,796 167,577 97,117

Salmon-Challis National Forest 2,488,187 134,697 96,116

Sawtooth National Forest 1,710,407 294,025 198,056

Caribou-Targhee National Forest 2,329,740 481,826 423,713

Curlew National Grassland 47,790 21,501 20,153

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 5,775,113 460,301 297,485

Uinta National Forest 648,861 202,044 167,569

Wasatch-Cache National Forest 873,177 150,696 129,417

Subtotal 24,106,762 2,978,884 2,163,702

Region 5, Pacific Southwest Region

Angeles National Forest 30,250 14,917 0

Cleveland National Forest 113,775 4,606 2,135

(Continued From Previous Page)

Regions Acresa AUMs approvedb AUMs billedb
Appendix III

Detailed Grazing Data for Bureau of Land 

Management and the Forest Service

Page 74 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Eldorado National Forest 407,562 7,403 7,403

Inyo National Forest 866,587 63,711 51,611

Klamath National Forest (includes Butte Valley National Grassland) 708,640 19,372 17,521

Lassen National Forest 902,983 31,781 19,423

Los Padres National Forest 1,065,067 47,315 32,335

Mendocino National Forest 640,417 5,989 3,821

Modoc National Forest 3,832,197 126,206 97,737

Six Rivers National Forest 255,445 5,916 4,417

Plumas National Forest 645,888 27,883 19,774

San Bernardino National Forest 171,996 3,419 1,300

Sequoia National Forest 889,519 58,584 45,504

Shasta Trinity National Forest 130,059 9,659 2,637

Sierra National Forest 532,571 N/A N/A

Stanislaus National Forest 633,764 26,703 42,969

Tahoe National Forest 495,063 32,617 25,344

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 31,550 303 158

Subtotal 12,353,333 486,384 374,089

Region 6, Pacific Northwest Region

Deschutes National Forest 602,687 9,507 4,772

Fremont National Forest 1,407,837 49,484 43,348

Gifford Pinchot National Forest 177,297 N/A N/A

Malheur National Forest 1,627,719 118,539 92,810

Mt Hood National Forest 284,884 1,818 3,527

Ochoco National Forest 787,644 44,856 37,861

Crooked River National Grassland 112,357 16,930 7

Olympic National Forestc 000

Rogue River National Forest 554,485 11,249 7,655

Siskiyou National Forest 157,422 462 379

Siuslaw National Forestc 000

Umatilla National Forest 967,985 56,854 39,170

Umpqua National Forest 121,147 N/A N/A

Wallowa Whitman National Forest 1,645,814 135,598 105,774

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests 1,675,338 87,957 51,473

Willamette National Forest 45 N/A N/A

Winema National Forest 466,026 17,173 10,804

Colville National Forest 819,646 N/A N/A

Subtotal 11,408,333 550,427 397,580

(Continued From Previous Page)

Regions Acresa AUMs approvedb AUMs billedb
Appendix III

Detailed Grazing Data for Bureau of Land 

Management and the Forest Service

Page 75 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Source: Forest Service (data); GAO (analysis).

Notes: The Forest Service has no Region 7. 

N/A = Not available.

a

Acres values include vacant and active acres for the Forest Service.

b

Although we use the term AUMs to simplify the comparison with BLM data, we used the Forest 

Service’s head month data for this table because they are equivalent to BLM’s AUM data.

c

According to agency officials, the Forest Service permitted grazing in Olympic and Siuslaw National 

Forests in the past, but grazing is no longer permitted in these forests.

Permits and Leases by 

Size

Because the number of AUMs per permit or lease can vary greatly, the 

number of AUMs controlled by permittees or lessees also varies greatly. 

Tables 12 through 16 show the number of BLM and Forest Service permits 

and leases, and AUMs, by permit size. When considering the data, it must 

be noted that multiple permits or leases may be contained on a single 

allotment, just as one permit or lease may span multiple allotments. It must 

Region 8, Southern Region

NFS in Alabama National Forest 1,763 452 169

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest 1,507 3,690 0

National Forests in Florida 44,866 600 600

Kisatchie National Forest 73,238 6,238 151

National Forests in Mississippi 2,724 577 84

George Washington and Jefferson National Forests 8,400 9,579 7,405

Ouachita National Forest 453,195 7,326 4,225

Ozark-St Francis National Forest 49,732 7,092 3,192

National Forests in North Carolina 291 N/A N/A

National Forests in Texas (includes Caddo/Lyndon B. Johnson 

National Grasslands) 39,342 4,404 3,449

Subtotal 675,058 39,958 19,275

Region 9, Eastern Region

Chippewa National Forest 125 N/A N/A

Huron Manistee National Forest 1,584 N/A N/A

Mark Twain National Forest 42,777 15,341 13,630

Wayne National Forest 148 606 214

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie 19,165 4,910 7,658

Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests 5,438 8,942 7,042

Monogahela National Forest 6,203 4,917 5,267

Subtotal 75,440 34,716 33,811

Total 92,924,454 9,164,987 6,050,611

(Continued From Previous Page)

Regions Acresa AUMs approvedb AUMs billedb
Appendix III

Detailed Grazing Data for Bureau of Land 

Management and the Forest Service

Page 76 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

also be noted that several operators may share one permit or lease, just as 

one operator may possess multiple permits or leases; therefore, the number 

of permits and leases does not necessarily correlate to the total number of 

operators. Table 12 shows the size of BLM permits and leases, using 

approved AUMs in fiscal year 2004. The data do not include permits and 

leases with less than 2 AUMs.2

Table 12: Number of BLM Permits by Size, Fiscal Year 2004 

Source: BLM. 

a

We start with 2 AUMs because we recreated a table from a previous GAO report. In that report, 

officials were concerned about the accuracy of data for permits with 2 AUMs or less and considered all 

permits and leases with more than 2 AUMs. 

The Forest Service provided data on permit size for cattle and sheep in 

regions 1 through 6, those regions with lands in western states. Table 13 

shows the data for cattle, which do not include horses or other livestock 

and do not include permits with fewer than 2 AUMs of grazing for cattle. 

2

The agencies recreated tables that we produced in two previous GAO reports: GAO, 

Rangeland Management: Profile of the Bureau of Land Management’s Grazing Allotments 

and Permits, GAO/RCED-92-213FS (Washington, D.C.: June 10, 1992) and GAO, Rangeland 

Management: Profile of the Forest Service’s Grazing Allotments and Permittees,

GAO/RCED-93-141FS (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 1993).

Size of permit or lease, 

AUMsa

Number of permits and

leases Total approved AUMs

2 to 10 1,266 8,613

11 to 100 6,073 267,368

101 to 500 5,551 1,367,336

501 to 1,000 1,910 1,354,380

1,001 to 5,000 2,556 5,374,337

5,001 to 10,000 285 1,929,577

Over 10,000 143 2,364,322

Total 17,784 12,665,933
Appendix III

Detailed Grazing Data for Bureau of Land 

Management and the Forest Service

Page 77 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Table 13: Number of Forest Service Cattle Permits by Size, Grazing Year 2004 

Source: Forest Service.

a

The permit size groups start with 2 AUMs because we recreated a table from a previous GAO report, 

and, in the past, officials were concerned about the accuracy of data for permits with 2 AUMs or less. 

Forest Service sheep permits are shown in table 14. For the purposes of 

conversion, five sheep equal 1 AUM. In addition to the sheep, an 

insignificant number of horses are included in the data because, in some 

cases, permittees may keep a horse for herding the sheep. 

Table 14: Number of Forest Service Sheep Permits by Size, Grazing Year 2004

Source: Forest Service.

a

The permit size groups start with 2 AUMs because we recreated a table from a previous GAO report. 

In that report, officials were concerned about the accuracy of data for permits with 2 AUMs or less.

b

This does not include permits with less than 50 AUMs.

For comparison purposes, the size of cattle and calf operations in the 

United States is shown in table 15.

Size of permits, AUMsa Number of permits Total approved AUMs

2 to 10 26 170

11 to 100 757 43,071

101 to 500 2,199 592,251

501 to 1,000 1,090 773,293

1,001 to 5,000 1,170 2,337,730

5,001 to 10,000 89 604,806

Over 10,000 34 1,049,515

Total 5,365 5,400,836

Size of permits, AUMsa Number of Permits Total approved AUMs

50 to 500b 17 4,680

501 to 1,500 46 46,876

1,501 to 5,000 125 406,865

5,001 to 15,000 109 969,131

15,001 to 25,000 25 471,869

over 25,000 13 461,751

Total 335 2,361,172
Appendix III

Detailed Grazing Data for Bureau of Land 

Management and the Forest Service

Page 78 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Table 15: Number of Cattle and Calf Operations and Percent of Inventory, United 

States, 2004

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (data); GAO (analysis).

The size of beef cow operations is shown in table 16.

Table 16: Number of Beef Cow Operations and Percent of Inventory, United States, 

2004

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (data); GAO (analysis).

Number of head of cattle 

and calves Number of operations Percent of inventory

1 to 49 618,750 11.3

50 to 99 163,750 11.6

100 to 499 178,530 35.4

500 to 999 18,445 12.7

1,000 to 1,999 6,300 7.8

2,000 to 4,999 2,700 7.7

5,000 to 9,999 580 3.9

10,000 to 19,999 225 2.9

20,000 plus 180 6.7

Total 989,460 100.0

Number of head of beef 

cows Number of operations Percent of inventory

1 to 49 601,650 28.1

50 to 99 95,650 19.1

100 to 499 72,020 38.3

500 to 999 4,030 7.8

1,000 to 1,999 950 3.4

2,000 to 4,999 280 2.1

5,000 plus 50 1.2

Total 774,630 100.0
Page 79 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Appendix IV

Grazing Fee for Lands Managed by BLM and 

the Forest Service ApendxiIV

Rangelands in the United States have been used for livestock grazing since 

the expansion and settlement of the western frontier. Ranchers have grazed 

livestock on lands managed by the Forest Service and its predecessor since 

the late 1890s and on lands managed by BLM and its predecessor since 

1934. Historically, BLM and Forest Service fees were established to achieve 

different objectives—either to recover administrative expenses or to 

reflect livestock prices, respectively—but the agencies began using the 

same approach to setting fees in 1969. Over the years, the agencies, as well 

as outside entities, have conducted numerous studies attempting to 

establish a grazing fee that meets the objectives of multiple parties. The 

current fee for BLM and the Forest Service’s 16 western states is based on a 

formula that estimates ranchers’ ability to pay, and was established in 1978 

based on studies conducted in the 1960s and 1970s.1

 This appendix 

discusses the current fee, historical fees, and key grazing studies and their 

findings. 

Current Fee for BLM’s 

and the Forest 

Service’s Western 

States

In 2004, the grazing fee for lands managed by BLM and the Forest Service’s 

16 western states was $1.43 per AUM—or the amount of forage needed to 

sustain a cow and her calf for 30 days.2

 This fee is set annually according to 

a formula established in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 

(PRIA) and extended indefinitely by Executive Order 12548. The formula is:

Fee = $1.23 x (FVI +BCPI – PPI)/100 

where $1.23 = the base value, or the difference between the costs of 

conducting ranching business on private lands, including any grazing fees 

charged, and public lands, not including grazing fees. The costs were 

computed in a 1966 study that included 10,000 ranching businesses in the 

western states.

FVI = Forage Value Index, or the weighted average estimate of the annual 

rental charge per head per month for pasturing cattle on private rangelands 

in 11 western states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New 

1

The 16 western states include Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, 

Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. 

2

While BLM uses the term AUM as a unit for purposes of charging fees, the Forest Service 

uses the term head month. The two units are calculated the same way. We use the term AUM 

in this report to refer to both AUM and head month.
Appendix IV

Grazing Fee for Lands Managed by BLM and 

the Forest Service 

Page 80 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming) divided by 

$3.65 per head month (the private grazing land lease rate for the base 

period of 1964-68) and multiplied by 100.

BCPI = Beef Cattle Price Index, or the weighted average annual selling 

price for beef cattle (excluding calves) in the 11 western states divided by 

$22.04 per hundredweight (the beef cattle price per hundred pounds for the 

base period of 1964-68) and multiplied by 100.

PPI = Prices Paid Index, for selected components from USDA’s National 

Agricultural Statistics Service’s Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Goods 

and Services, adjusted by different weights (in parentheses) to reflect 

livestock production costs in the western states [fuels and energy (14.5), 

farm and motor supplies (12.0), autos and trucks (4.5), tractors and selfpropelled machinery (4.5), other machinery (12.0), building and fencing 

materials (14.5), interest (6.0), farm wage rates (14.0), and farm services 

(cash rent) (18.0)].

PRIA limited the annual increase or decrease in the resulting fee to 25 

percent. It also established the fee formula for a 7-year trial period and 

required that the effects of the fee be evaluated at the end of that period. 

Although the fee formula under PRIA expired in 1986, the use of the fee 

formula was extended indefinitely by Executive Order 12548. The 

executive order requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to 

establish fees according to the PRIA formula, including the 25 percent limit 

on increases or decreases in the fee. In addition, the order established that 

the fee should not be lower than $1.35 per AUM. 

As shown in figure 3, the formula results have been limited by the PRIA and 

executive order constraints, but neither the formula results nor the PRIA 

fee has mirrored fees charged for grazing on private lands. 
Appendix IV

Grazing Fee for Lands Managed by BLM and 

the Forest Service 

Page 81 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Figure 3: Unconstrained Formula Results and PRIA Grazing Fee Compared with 

Fees Charged on Private Lands

Note: In 1980, BLM and the Forest Service charged $2.36 per AUM and $2.41 per AUM, respectively, 

or on average, $2.38 per AUM. Prior to 1981, the agencies charged different fees for grazing—in 1979, 

they charged $1.89 per AUM and $1.93 per AUM, respectively. In 1980, the agencies used the PRIA 

formula to calculate their fees, but the formula produced a fee of $2.77, and PRIA limited the annual 

increase in the fee to 25 percent. The different fees charged in 1980 were a result of the agencies 

applying the 25 percent increase to their 1979 fees. 

According to different economic studies and our evaluation of the PRIA fee 

structure in 1991, the fee is kept low by including the BCPI and PPI, which 

are factors that take into account ranchers’ “ability to pay.”3

 Figure 4 shows 

the value of each PRIA component from 1979 through 2004. 

3

GAO, Rangeland Management: Current Formula Keeps Grazing Fees Low, GAO/RCED91-185BR (Washington, D.C.: June 11, 1991).

Dollars

PRIA fee

Formula results

Private fees

Year

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (data); GAO (analysis).

0

3

6

9

12

15

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005
Appendix IV

Grazing Fee for Lands Managed by BLM and 

the Forest Service 

Page 82 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Figure 4: Value of PRIA Grazing Formula Components, 1979 through 2004

Table 17 shows the data used in the previous two figures for easier reading 

of the numbers. 

Index value

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service (data); GAO (analysis).

0

200

400

600

800

PPI

BCPI

FVI

Year
Appendix IV

Grazing Fee for Lands Managed by BLM and 

the Forest Service 

Page 83 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Table 17: PRIA Formula Data for 1979 through 2004 and Fee Results for 1980 

through 2005

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service.

a

In 1980, BLM and the Forest Service charged $2.36 per AUM and $2.41 per AUM, respectively, or on 

average, $2.38 per AUM. Prior to 1981, the agencies charged different fees for grazing—in 1979, they 

charged $1.89 per AUM and $1.93 per AUM, respectively. In 1980, the PRIA formula produced a fee 

of $2.77, but PRIA limited the annual increase in the fee to 25 percent. The different fees charged in 

1980 were a result of the agencies applying the 25 percent increase to their 1979 fees.

Data 

year

Private lands

grazing fee FVI BCPI PPI

Fee

year

Formula

results

PRIA fee

(constrained)

1979 7.53 206 294 275 1980 2.77 a

1980 7.88 216 291 319 1981 2.31 2.31

1981 8.83 242 268 359 1982 1.89 1.86

1982 8.36 229 262 378 1983 1.39 1.39

1983 8.85 242 256 387 1984 1.37 1.37

1984 8.86 243 262 395 1985 1.35 1.35

1985 9.17 251 243 397 1986 0.93 1.35

1986 8.5 233 235 388 1987 0.98 1.35

1987 8.54 234 272 381 1988 1.54 1.54

1988 8.75 240 297 386 1989 1.86 1.86

1989 8.87 243 306 402 1990 1.81 1.81

1990 9.22 253 326 419 1991 1.97 1.97

1991 9.66 265 327 436 1992 1.92 1.92

1992 10.03 275 316 440 1993 1.86 1.86

1993 10.2 279 333 451 1994 1.98 1.98

1994 10.3 282 304 455 1995 1.61 1.61

1995 11 301 277 473 1996 1.29 1.35

1996 10.7 293 252 499 1997 0.57 1.35

1997 11.3 310 281 512 1998 0.97 1.35

1998 11.8 323 272 514 1999 1 1.35

1999 11.9 326 281 516 2000 1.12 1.35

2000 12 329 313 554 2001 1.08 1.35

2001 12.6 345 330 559 2002 1.43 1.43

2002 13 356 303 559 2003 1.23 1.35

2003 13.4 367 342 593 2004 1.43 1.43

2004 13.8 378 402 618 2005 1.99 1.79
Appendix IV

Grazing Fee for Lands Managed by BLM and 

the Forest Service 

Page 84 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

History of Western 

Grazing Fees

Grazing fees have been charged for lands managed by the Forest Service 

since 1906—9 years after grazing was authorized on forest reserves—and 

for lands now managed by BLM since 1936, 2 years after the enactment of 

the Taylor Grazing Act. Before 1906, livestock could graze on federally 

managed lands for free, and livestock operators objected to being charged. 

Originally, the fee charged by the Forest Service and BLM was $0.05 per 

AUM for cattle, but the fee increased by 1968 to $0.56 per AUM for Forest 

Service permits and $0.33 per AUM for BLM leases and permits. 

Until 1969, the approach used by the Forest Service and BLM for 

establishing grazing fees differed. The original Forest Service fee was 

based on the rental value of local, private grazing tracts, while the original 

BLM fee was based on the agency’s administrative expenses. Beginning in 

the 1920s and continuing through 1968, the Forest Service based its fee on 

beef and lamb prices, as determined through studies it conducted. BLM 

(and its predecessor) also conducted studies of its fee approach. In 1946, 

the year that BLM was created, one of these studies supported the use of 

administrative expenses as a basis for the fee. However, in 1951, BLM 

began increasing its fees, and in 1958, it shifted its approach to one that was 

similar to the Forest Service approach—that is, based on livestock prices. 

Throughout the 1960s, BLM charged fees that factored in livestock prices. 

For example, the 1958 fee increased from $0.19 per AUM to $0.22 per AUM 

in 1959 and 1960, and it decreased to $0.19 per AUM in 1961 and 1962, 

reflecting decreasing livestock prices.

Since 1969, the Forest Service and BLM have used a uniform approach to 

establish a grazing fee. After a 1960 study conducted for the Bureau of the 

Budget—the predecessor of the OMB—by an interdepartmental grazing 

committee, the Bureau set a new fee schedule for the agencies to achieve 

fair market value for federal grazing permits and leases. An extensive 

survey in 1966 of the western livestock industry, called the Western 

Livestock Grazing Survey and Analysis, and a 1968 review of that survey 

data determined that a fair market value for federal grazing permits and 

leases would be $1.23 per AUM. The $1.23 per AUM value equalizes the 

costs of conducting business between private ranch lands and federal 

lands. It is based on the premise that the costs of conducting grazing 

activities on federal lands should be competitive and comparable to the 

costs on private land. Because the new fee, if imposed all at once, would 

have increased Forest Service fees by $0.72 per AUM and BLM fees by $0.90 

per AUM, a 10-year phase period was scheduled. 
Appendix IV

Grazing Fee for Lands Managed by BLM and 

the Forest Service 

Page 85 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Before the new fee could be implemented, drought and continued debate 

caused several delays in the phase-in schedule, and in 1976, the Congress 

passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which 

required the Secretaries of Agriculture and of the Interior to conduct a 

study to establish a fee that was equitable both to the United States and to 

holders of grazing permits and leases. The 1977 study, Study of Fees for 

Grazing Livestock on Federal Lands, written by a task force of Forest 

Service and BLM officials,4

 evaluated several different formulas for setting 

a grazing fee. The goal was to establish a fee that achieved multiple 

objectives, including getting fair market value for the forage while also 

reflecting the value of grazing to the rancher. The fee was also to contain 

regular adjustments to account for changes in fair market value over time. 

On the basis of the 1977 study, Congress enacted PRIA with the task force’s 

recommended formula for a 7 year trial basis. The agencies studied the 

effectiveness of the formula after 7 years, as required in PRIA, and 

academic economists sought to establish better ways to set a fee, but the 

use of the formula was extended indefinitely by executive order and has 

remain unchanged. Two studies by the agencies, one in 1986 and its update 

in 1992, evaluated the components of the PRIA formula and its results.5

 The 

reports identified technical issues with the formula, including the fact that 

the BCPI does not include prices for calves—which are produced on 

western lands—and does include fat cattle (cattle fattened on grain for 

slaughter), which are not produced on western lands. The reports also 

noted that the PPI does not include a cost of living component; 

components of farm origin (feed, feeder livestock, seed, and fertilizer); or 

taxes; all of which increases the weight of factors that are affected by 

inflation, such as fuel costs. Finally, the reports identified the need to 

update the base value ($1.23 per AUM) to reflect current market values 

rather than 1960s data. 

Critics of the reports stated that the agencies did not evaluate the 

effectiveness of the PRIA formula; disagreed with the agencies’ appraisal of 

private lands and fees; and identified incorrect statistical indexing, such as 

4

Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, Study of Fees for Grazing Livestock on 

Federal Lands (Washington, D.C.: October 21, 1977).

5

Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, Grazing Fee Review and Evaluation 

(Washington, D.C.: February, 1986) and Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, 

Grazing Fee Review and Evaluation Update of the 1986 Final Report (Washington, D.C.: 

April 30, 1992).
Appendix IV

Grazing Fee for Lands Managed by BLM and 

the Forest Service 

Page 86 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

using inflation factors instead of a livestock-relevant factor. They also 

stated that the agencies failed to recognize the different costs of operating 

on federal and private land. According to the critics, one of these costs is 

the value of permits and leases, which is included in the value of privately 

owned ranches. The livestock industry believes that this value should be 

included in the calculation of the $1.23 base value (subtracted out as a cost 

of doing business). 

In 1993, in response to a perceived need to increase fees to capture the 

economic value of forage, another Forest Service and BLM study examined 

the potential for an incentive-based grazing fee. The report identified the 

“grazing fee dilemma” as one in which the federal government is not 

receiving full market value for its forage, but as one in which ranchers are 

paying full market value by paying (1) the fee; (2) nonfee grazing costs 

(including costs for operating on federal lands, i.e., complying with federal 

requirements like those for endangered species habitat); and (3) 

investments in grazing permits and leases.6

 According to this study, the only 

way to determine the fair market value of federal grazing permits and 

leases was through competitive bidding, which would have its own set of 

administrative expenses. In lieu of competitive bidding, according to this 

study, all methods of estimating fair market value resulted in fees 

somewhere between $3 and $5, and the base value of the formula should be 

negotiated at some price in that range. The report also stated that including 

BCPI and PPI in the grazing formula did not improve the ability of the PRIA 

formula to track market prices, as anticipated in 1977, and that FVI would 

adequately update the grazing fee. This study and report were used to 

inform efforts to reform grazing regulations in 1994. 

In the late 1980s, agricultural economists examined livestock prices and 

ranch revenue—the gross income from ranching—to assess the rate of 

return on investments in cattle and sheep ranches. The economists found 

that rates of return are relatively low compared with other investments, but 

that land value has increased and kept ranchers financially solvent. 

Furthermore, the net return in the ranching industry—the value of 

production minus costs—is often negative. This information was used to 

support federal legislation to change grazing fees in 1997. The legislation 

proposed to change the fee to equal the 12-year average of the total gross 

6

Department of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Business, The Value of Public 

Land Forage and the Implications for Grazing Fee Policy, Bulletin 767 (Las Cruces, New 

Mexico: New Mexico State University, 1992).
Appendix IV

Grazing Fee for Lands Managed by BLM and 

the Forest Service 

Page 87 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

value of production for beef, multiplied by the 12-year average of the 

Treasury 6-month bill “new issue” rate, divided by 12.7

 The proposal was 

not enacted.

7

H.R. 2493, Forage Improvement Act of 1997 (introduced Sept. 18, 1997).
Page 88 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Appendix V

Examples of Other Federal Agency Grazing 

Fees ApendxiV

This appendix illustrates the different grazing fees used by federal agencies 

other than BLM and the Forest Service. It describes the specific fees 

charged at two Air Force bases—one managed by the Air Force and the 

other managed by BLM—an Army base, a national monument, a national 

refuge, and a Reclamation project. 

Melrose Air Force Range, 

Cannon Air Force Base, 

New Mexico

Melrose Air Force Range, located in eastern New Mexico, is a more than 

66,000 acre site used by the Air Force to train pilots. It consists of an 8,800 

acre target area and 57,000 acres of land surrounding the target area that 

acts as a buffer. The land is divided into 13 grazing areas, each of which has 

fencing and a water supply provided by a system of pipelines and water 

tanks. The target area lands were acquired from local ranchers in the 1950s, 

and the remaining area was acquired in the 1980s. Because the lands were 

acquired from local ranchers, the Air Force granted a special waiver in 

March 2002 to allow noncompetitive leasing to the former owners. Air 

Force policy allows waivers of competition under certain conditions, 

including offers of first lease of land to former owners. 

In fiscal year 2002, when many of the range’s leases were renewed, the fee 

charged for grazing was $1.60 per acre of land (about $5.30 per AUM). The 

waiver of competition contained a condition that the lease fee was to be 

based on a market rate determined by real property specialists. To establish 

a market-based grazing fee, the Air Force real estate staff developed 

comparable lease information for other grazing land in the vicinity and set 

an equivalent price. One source used for pricing information was a local 

agricultural land appraiser and the other was a Web site identified by the 

local BLM office that contained lease rates for the state. The prices remain 

the same for the 5-year term of the lease, when they will be reestablished. 

In mid-2003 and all of 2004, Cannon Air Force Base halted grazing on 

Melrose Range because of drought conditions that affected much of New 

Mexico and the southwestern United States. The ranchers received credits 

for the months that their cattle did not graze. 

McGregor Range, New 

Mexico 

McGregor Range in southern Otero County, New Mexico, is a 694,981 acre 

area that contains a bombing range used by the Air Force to train pilots, 

who practice bombing targets within the range. The land within McGregor 

Range has mixed ownership and management, including 608,385 acres (87 

percent) of public land managed by BLM but withdrawn from public use, 

71,083 acres (about 10 percent) owned in fee title by the Army, and 17,864 

acres (3 percent) managed by the Forest Service. 
Appendix V

Examples of Other Federal Agency Grazing 

Fees

Page 89 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

In 1999, the Congress enacted the Military Lands Withdrawal Act, renewing 

the withdrawal of public lands comprising the McGregor Range for military 

use but requiring BLM to plan and manage use of the lands in accordance 

with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield required by FLPMA. 

While accommodating the military’s continued use of the range, BLM 

manages other activities on the range, including livestock grazing, habitat 

management, fire prevention and control, and recreation, such as hunting. 

BLM’s Las Cruces Field Office in New Mexico administers livestock grazing 

on 271,000 acres of land. The area is divided into 14 grazing units available 

for grazing contract, primarily for cattle. 

In contrast to the fee charged on other BLM and Forest Service lands, BLM 

manages livestock grazing permits on McGregor Range using competitive 

bidding to establish its grazing fee. BLM sets a minimum bid and then holds 

an annual public auction, where all bidders meet and openly submit their 

offers. As a result, in September 2004, BLM received winning bids ranging 

from $5.00 to $14.50 per AUM to graze cattle on designated grazing units for 

the 9-month grazing season ending in June 2005. BLM expects the 

McGregor Range grazing program to be self-sustaining through competitive 

bidding for grazing units. BLM staff for McGregor Range consist of one 

rangeland management specialist, one range technician, and one 

maintenance worker. Revenues from the grazing leases allow BLM 

employees to monitor the number of cattle on the range and manage roads, 

fences, corrals, and water pipelines. The livestock owners manage and 

provide care for the cattle, including salt, minerals, and veterinary services. 

According to BLM officials, additional services provided on the range by 

BLM result in a higher minimum bid, and BLM is able to attract higher bids 

compared to other livestock grazing areas. 

Fort Hood Army 

Installation, Texas 

Fort Hood, located in central Texas, is a 217,000-acre Army installation, the 

majority of which is used for military training activities, including tank and 

other armored vehicle training exercises. The Army allows a certain level 

of grazing on about 197,000 acres of the installation, having determined that 

grazing would not interfere with the installation’s primary training mission. 

The majority of the installation’s lands were acquired from private 

landowners. Some of the original landowners formed a group, called the 

Central Texas Cattlemen’s Association, which has continued leasing the 

land since 1954. In 2005, upon lease renewal, the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Installations and Environment) determined to offer the group a 

noncompetitive lease, provided that the installation obtain a fair market 

value for the lease. The Corps—the Army’s leasing agent—had 
Appendix V

Examples of Other Federal Agency Grazing 

Fees

Page 90 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

recommended that the lease be competitively bid, but it also acknowledged 

that a transition to competitive leasing may be needed. The Army 

determined that while it had no legal obligation to continue leasing to the 

group, the relationship with the neighboring ranchers contributed to the 

Army’s ability to sustain its mission, discharge its environmental 

stewardship responsibilities, and maintain its standing in the community. 

In 2005, the Army renegotiated a lease with the Central Texas Cattlemen’s 

Association, charging a price of $4.67 per AUM ($56 per animal unit, per 

year), plus the installation’s administrative and management expenses. The 

Army agreed to adjust the number of animal units based on a new forage 

assessment and an evaluation of training intensity and the consequent 

effects on forage. The Army also agreed to conduct a new appraisal that 

considers factors that are unique to managing grazing on a military 

installation, such as lack of fencing, presence of endangered species, and 

restricted access to the installation. Although a land appraisal was 

conducted in 2004 and determined the price of the new lease to be $7.83 

per AUM, Army officials agreed with the Association to discount this value 

by 40 percent for April 1, 2005, through August 31, 2005, because the 

appraisal did not explicitly consider the military unique circumstances that, 

according to Army officials, lead to higher grazing costs on Army lands. The 

40-percent figure was based on a figure used in a 1996 appraisal, although 

the U.S. Army Audit Agency questioned the adjustment in a 2001 audit 

report.1

 The Army received a new appraisal on August 12, 2005, that has a 

price of $5.66 per AUM ($68 per animal unit, per year) when adjusted for 

military unique circumstances. It will use this new amount as the basis of 

the fee for the remainder of the 5-year lease period. In addition to these 

agreements, the Cattlemen’s Association agreed to pay $102,000 for 

estimated administrative expenditures owed in the new lease and agreed to 

reimburse actual expenditures when the Army presents evidence of actual 

expenditures at the end of the lease year. Army staff estimated their 2005 

expenditures to be $285,000. 

Dinosaur National 

Monument, Colorado and 

Utah

Dinosaur National Monument, located in northwestern Colorado and 

northeastern Utah, was created to protect a large deposit of dinosaur 

fossils and later expanded to protect the river corridors of the Green and 

Yampa rivers. The monument, which occupies 210,000 acres of desert 

1

U.S. Army Audit Agency, The Army Installation Conservation Program—Outleasing: III 

Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, Texas, AA 02-099 (Alexandria, Virginia: Dec. 19, 2001).
Appendix V

Examples of Other Federal Agency Grazing 

Fees

Page 91 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

habitat, permits grazing on monument lands to ranchers that have 

historically held grazing rights. Several ranchers with grazing rights own 

land within the boundaries of the monument, called inholdings, while 

several other ranchers with grazing rights own land adjacent to the 

monument. In fiscal year 2004, monument staff authorized 1,794 AUMs on 

67,120 acres using seven special use permits.

In 2004, the monument charged $1.43 per AUM—the price for grazing on 

BLM lands. National Park Service regulations specific to the monument 

direct that the grazing fees at the monument shall be the same as those 

approved for the BLM.2

 The National Park Service is statutorily authorized 

to recover the costs of administering special use permits; however, a 

monument official said that they have never charged such a fee because of 

the more specific regulations that determine the monument’s fee.

Klamath Basin National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

California and Oregon

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex is part of the wetland and lake system of the Klamath Basin of 

northern California and southern Oregon and provides habitat for 

numerous birds along the Pacific flyway during spring and fall migrations. 

In 1905, Reclamation began to convert wetlands in the basin into 

agricultural lands. The refuge complex is comprised of six refuges that 

were established between 1908 and 1978 to conserve wetlands as a 

preserve and breeding ground for birds and animals. The refuge is also 

managed to allow appropriate agricultural uses of land. Klamath Basin 

refuge managers authorize grazing on 17,046 acres of the basin to allow 

adjacent ranchers access to forage on refuge lands and to reduce certain 

grasses, thereby improving the habitat of the birds that use the refuges.

In fiscal year 2004, the refuge charged different fixed amounts ranging from 

$5.00 to $6.55 per AUM for grazing on three federal refuges in the Klamath 

Basin complex–Clear Lake, Lower Klamath, and Upper Klamath. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service regulations require that fees charged for the grant of 

privileges and for the sale of all products taken from refuge areas, including 

forage, be equivalent to the fees charged by private owners in the vicinity of 

the refuge. Refuge officials said that the fees were negotiated in the 1980s 

and have remained unchanged. However, they stated that the fees are 

appropriate because the refuges receive benefits from grazing for wildlife 

2

See 36 C.F.R. 7.63(b)(5).
Appendix V

Examples of Other Federal Agency Grazing 

Fees

Page 92 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

habitat and forage and permittees must meet specific limitations on their 

use of refuge lands. For example, in one case involving the Clear Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge, when water levels decrease significantly and 

expose Native American archaeological sites, one rancher incurs 

significant expenditures (e.g., temporary fencing, temporary water sources, 

and a herder) to keep cattle away. 

Fresno Reservoir and 

Reclamation’s Milk River 

Project, Montana

Fresno Reservoir, located in north-central Montana, is part of 

Reclamation’s Milk River Project, which provides irrigation water to about 

121,000 acres of land. Reclamation acquired excess land surrounding 

Fresno Reservoir when it built the Fresno Dam; the reservoir was originally 

planned to be higher and would have flooded more land. As a result, 

Reclamation allows grazing on the strip of land surrounding the reservoir. 

The area office conducts grazing on over 24,000 acres of land near Fresno 

Reservoir, and allows grazing on over 27,000 acres of land managed by two 

irrigation districts on Reclamation land within the greater Milk River 

Project. Revenue from the grazing receipts goes into either the 

Reclamation Fund or is credited to divisions within the Milk River Project.

In fiscal year 2004, the Montana Area Office charged between $8.25 and 

$25.10 per AUM for numerous grazing permits and leases within the Milk 

River Project. To establish these fees, the area office used three types of 

market-based methods, including competitive, limited competitive, and 

negotiated. For all permits and leases, the area office set a minimum bid 

based on the market value for permits and leases in the area, and then 

discounted the rate for factors such as lack of fencing on Reclamation 

lands. The area office then offered the majority of project permits and 

leases for competitive bid using a sealed bid process. For parcels with 

limited access, the area office limited competition to the adjacent 

landowners, giving them equal opportunity to bid on the permits and 

leases. Much of the land within the Milk River Project is surrounded by 

private land, and therefore the Reclamation land has limited public access. 

For a few permits and leases, the area office used what it called a 

negotiated method to establish the grazing fee. In these cases, in which 

only one rancher has access to a site, the area office offered each permit or 

lease to the rancher at the minimum bid, allowing the rancher to accept or 

reject the bid. 
Page 93 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Appendix VI

Western State Grazing Fees and Formulas ApendxiVI

As this appendix discusses, the 17 western states vary considerably in the 

fees charged for state lands and the methods used to set those fees. These 

states’ land offices manage more than 46 million acres of trust lands, of 

which more than 37 million acres were grazed in fiscal year 2004,1

 bringing 

in grazing revenues of more than $40.7 million.

Upon statehood, most western states, as well as several other states 

throughout the nation, received lands from the federal government to be 

held in trust to generate revenue for public education. The Land Ordinance 

of 1785 initiated a program to reserve certain lands within each western 

township to support public schools in that township. In 1848, the federal 

government doubled the lands granted to western states, and it did so again 

by 1910, with the accession of Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico to 

statehood.2

According to many state officials that we interviewed, many state trust 

lands are comparable in range condition, productivity, and land value to 

federal lands. For example, in some states, such as Wyoming and 

Oklahoma, state lands are intermingled with or adjacent to federal lands; 

thus the native characteristics of the lands are similar. In some cases, 

however, federal and state lands are not comparable. For example, in 

Oregon much of the federal land is forested, while much of the state land is 

rangeland. 

Generally, the states charge a fee per AUM. In fiscal year 2004, the western 

states charged grazing fees ranging from a low of $1.35 per AUM for some 

lands in California to $80 per AUM in parts of Montana. As shown in table 

18, the majority of the western states use a market or market-based 

approach to set grazing fees. Specifically, six states (Montana, Nebraska, 

New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota) offer their 

leases to the highest bidder through a competitive process, and six states 

1

The western states predominantly maintain grazing data by fiscal year. However, several 

states (Colorado, Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington) 

maintain some grazing data by fiscal year and some by calendar year.

2

Originally, with the Land Ordinance, the number 16 lots of every township were reserved 

for that township. In 1848, the act establishing Oregon gave states in the Northwest territory 

sections 16 and 36 in each township. In 1894, Utah, followed in 1910 by Arizona and New 

Mexico, entered the nation with two additional sections reserved in each township, sections 

2 and 32. In addition to lands granted for schools, states could set aside additional trust 

lands to generate revenue for broader purposes, such as supporting universities, hospitals, 

and other public buildings.
Appendix VI

Western State Grazing Fees and Formulas

Page 94 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

(Arizona, California, Colorado, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming) use 

market-based approaches that rely on regional market rates, land 

appraisals, or formulas that adjust the market price for grazing by factors 

that account for differences between state and private lands and livestock 

market conditions. Three states (Idaho, Oregon, and Utah) use formulas 

that do not start with a market price for private lands, but instead use 

either a base fee, adjusted for livestock market and other factors, or a fixed 

percentage of livestock production value. Two states, Nevada and Kansas, 

allow some grazing on lands managed by other state agencies, but they do 

not allow grazing on state trust lands and are therefore not included in this 

appendix.

Table 18: Information on State Lands Used for Grazing, Revenues, and Fee-Setting Approach in 17 Western States, Fiscal Year 

2004a

State

State lands

managed

(acres)

State lands

allocated for

grazing (acres)

Total revenue from

state lands

Total revenue

related to

grazing

Grazing fee

(per AUM

unless

noted) Approach to setting fee

Arizona 9,300,000 8,300,000 $145,600,000 $2,200,000 $2.23 Market-based appraisal with 

annual adjustment

California 470,000 13,000 6,200,000 8,000 1.35 to 12.50 Market based on average rates; 

fee varies by county

Colorado 3,000,000 2,400,000 36,450,000 4,730,000 6.65 to 8.91 Market-based formula; fee 

varies by region

Idaho 2,400,000 1,900,000 65,560,000 1,630,000 5.15 Formula similar to federal fee

Kansasb b b b bb No grazing on state land office 

lands

Montana 5,100,000 4,250,000 75,700,000 5,500,000 5.48 to 80.00 Market with minimum bid ($5.48 

per AUM)

Nebraska 1,450,000 1,200,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 16.00 to 28.00 Market with minimum bid 

(minimum fee varies by region)

Nevadac 3,000 0 c cc No grazing on state land office 

lands

New Mexico 9,000,000 8,700,000 278,700,000 7,630,000 0.71 to 10.15 

(per acre)

Market with minimum bid ($4.22 

per AUM)

North Dakota 710,000 690,000 4,600,000 Unknownd 1.73 to 19.69 

(per acre)

Market with minimum bid 

(minimum fee varies by tract)

Oklahoma 745,000 500,000 9,800,000 Unknownd 7.00 to 16.00 Market with minimum bid 

(minimum fee varies by region)

Oregon 1,570,000 640,000 620,000 300,000 4.32 Formula based on production 

factors
Appendix VI

Western State Grazing Fees and Formulas

Page 95 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Source: State agencies (data); GAO (analysis).

Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

a

The western states predominantly maintain grazing data by fiscal year. However, several states 

(Colorado, Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington) maintain some 

grazing data by fiscal year and some by calendar year.

b

Kansas does not manage any grazing on state trust lands.

c

The Nevada Division of State Lands within the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources does not manage any grazing on its lands. While other state offices in Nevada do manage 

grazing on state lands, we did not collect these data.

d

North Dakota and Oklahoma do not know total grazing revenue because they do not separate grazing 

revenue from crop revenue.

The states provided details about their approaches to setting grazing fees, 

as well as information on their lands and revenues collected.

Arizona: In Arizona, the annual rental rate for grazing land is required to be 

the true value rental rate determined by the Arizona State Land 

Commissioner based on the recommendations of the grazing land valuation 

commission. In fiscal year 2004, the Arizona State Land Department 

charged $2.23 per AUM for grazing on lands that it manages. In 1996 the 

department appraised the true value of forage on trust land using the 

market and income approaches. According to Arizona officials, yearly 

adjustment to the appraised value is made based upon a factor that is the 

ratio between the 5 year new and old average prices of beef, as compiled by 

USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service. Upon renewal, if multiple 

applications are filed for a lease, the current lessee can match competing 

bids. The department manages more than 9.3 million acres of land, of 

which more than 8.3 million acres were allocated for grazing in fiscal year 

2004. Total grazing receipts in fiscal year 2004 were about $2.2 million.

South Dakota 770,000 750,000 3,000,000 2,250,000 3.00 to 56.00

(per acre)

Market with minimum bid ($9.00 

per AUM)

Texas 750,000 550,000 365,000,000 1,200,000 4.16 to 12.50 Market-based appraisals

Utah 3,500,000 3,000,000 52,500,000 440,000 1.43 or 2.35 Formula that is similar to federal 

fee formula

Washington 3,000,000 850,000 210,000,000 650,000 5.41 or 7.76 Market-based formula for leases 

or based on production factors 

for permits

Wyoming 3,600,000 3,500,000 92,900,000 4,180,000 4.13 Market-based formula

Total 45,400,000 37,200,000 $1,366,600,000 $40,700,000 $1.35 to 80.00

(Continued From Previous Page)

State

State lands

managed

(acres)

State lands

allocated for

grazing (acres)

Total revenue from

state lands

Total revenue

related to

grazing

Grazing fee

(per AUM

unless

noted) Approach to setting fee
Appendix VI

Western State Grazing Fees and Formulas

Page 96 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

California: Upon receiving an application to lease lands, the California 

State Lands Commission is to appraise the lands and fix the annual rent; 

the total amount of the rental should not be in excess of the fair market 

value of the lands. In fiscal year 2004, the commission charged a range of 

fees, from $1.35 to $12.50 per AUM, for grazing on the lands that it 

manages. The commission establishes the grazing fees by calculating an 

average rate based on the rates charged by county agriculture 

commissioners or assessors and agricultural extension offices. If the total 

grazing fee for a lease is less than $500, as is often the case, a minimum 

rental fee of $500 per year is applied. The commission manages about 

470,000 acres of surface land, of which almost 13,000 acres were allocated 

for grazing in fiscal year 2004. Total grazing receipts in fiscal year 2004 

were about $8,000.

Colorado: The Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners is to include 

lease rates that will promote sound stewardship and land management 

practices, long-term agricultural productivity, and community stability. In 

2004, the state board charged between $6.65 and $8.91 per AUM for grazing 

on lands that it manages, depending on the region. The state board sets 

grazing fees on the basis of a 2004 statewide survey of private lease rates. 

The grazing fee is calculated for each region based on the average rate 

identified by the survey, then reduced by 35 percent to account for 

differences, such as fencing or water, between private and state lands. 

Each year since 2001, the state board has determined whether the fee 

should be adjusted up or down by 3 percent, depending on the Beef Price 

Index. The state board manages about 3 million acres of state land, of 

which about 2.4 million acres were allocated for grazing in 2004. Total 

grazing receipts in fiscal year 2004 were about $4.7 million.

Idaho: The Idaho State Board of Land Commissioners may lease any 

portion of the state land at a rental amount fixed and determined by the 

board. In 2004, the Idaho Department of Lands charged $5.15 per AUM for 

grazing on the lands that it manages. The board sets the grazing fee using a 

formula based on livestock market factors. The formula establishes the 

forage value for a given year based on four factors: the (1) forage value 

index for 11 western states; (2) beef cattle price index for 11 western 

states; (3) prices paid index for 11 western states; and (4) Idaho forage 

value index. The formula is then applied to a base value of $1.70, which was 

established in 1993 by the board. If the department receives more than one 

application for a lease, then it auctions the lease. The department manages 

about 2.4 million acres of land, of which about 1.9 million were allocated 
Appendix VI

Western State Grazing Fees and Formulas

Page 97 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

for grazing in fiscal year 2004. Total grazing receipts in fiscal year 2004 

were about $1.6 million.

Montana: The Trust Land Management Division of the Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation must lease tracts to 

the highest bidder unless the Board of Land Commissioners determines 

that the bid is not in the state’s best interest, and the board may not accept 

a bid that is below full market value. The division used competitive bidding 

to collect between $5.48 and $80.00 per AUM for grazing on the lands that it 

manages in fiscal year 2004. If no bids are received, then the division issues 

the lease or permit at the minimum rate, which was $5.48 per AUM in fiscal 

year 2004, set by a fee formula. The formula establishes the minimum fee 

by multiplying the average price per pound for beef cattle in Montana by a 

multiplier of 7.54. The division manages about 5.1 million acres of land, of 

which more than 4.2 million acres were allocated for grazing in fiscal year 

2004. Total grazing receipts in fiscal year 2004 were about $5.5 million. 

Nebraska: In Nebraska, all school land is subject to lease at fair market 

rental as determined by the Board of Educational Lands and Funds. In 

fiscal year 2004, the board used competitive bidding to collect between $16 

and $28 per AUM for grazing on the lands that it manages. The board sets 

minimum grazing fees by geographic area. It uses a formula that multiplies 

the available AUMs by private sector rates, and then adjusts the resulting 

per-acre rents downward to reflect fence and water improvements, which 

the lessees must provide. The board uses three data sources to determine 

private sector rates: (1) verified private sector rental contracts collected by 

its employees, (2) a questionnaire that the board sends to professional farm 

and ranch managers who have mandatory fiduciary responsibility to the 

landowners they represent, and (3) an annual study conducted by the 

University of Nebraska. The board gives the private contracts the most 

weight when determining the grazing fee. If more than one qualified bidder 

is interested in the lease, it is sold to the party bidding the highest cash 

bonus at auction. The board manages more than 1.4 million acres, of which 

about 1.2 million acres were allocated for grazing in fiscal year 2004. Total 

grazing receipts in fiscal year 2004 were about $10 million.

New Mexico: In New Mexico, the Commissioner of Public Lands is to make 

rules and regulations for the control, management, disposition, lease, and 

sale of state lands. In fiscal year 2004, the New Mexico State Land Office 

charged a minimum of $4.22 per AUM for grazing on lands that it manages, 

and collected between $0.71 and $10.15 per acre, based on competitive 

bidding. Absent a competitive bid, the state land office sets an annual 
Appendix VI

Western State Grazing Fees and Formulas

Page 98 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

grazing fee using a formula that multiplies a base value of $0.0474 by the 

carrying capacity of the land, the acreage, and the Economic Variable 

Index. This index is the ratio of the value of a state land office adjustment 

factor for that year to the value of that same adjustment factor calculated 

for the base year, 1987. The state land office manages about 9 million acres, 

of which about 8.7 million acres were allocated for grazing in fiscal year 

2004. Total grazing receipts in fiscal year 2004 were about $7.6 million.

North Dakota: In North Dakota, the Board of University and School Lands 

is required to set the minimum rental for uncultivated and cultivated lands, 

which it sets for the purpose of public auction using a procedure called “the 

fair market value method,” which it promulgated in 1989. In fiscal year 

2004, the North Dakota State Land Department collected between $1.73 

and $19.69 per acre, based on competitive bidding at public auction, on 

grazing lands that it manages. The department accepts bids over a 

minimum fee that is set for each tract based on a county-by-county survey 

completed annually by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service. The 

department manages about 710,000 acres, of which about 690,000 acres 

were allocated for grazing in fiscal year 2004. The department does not 

know the total revenue related to grazing collected in fiscal year 2004 

because they do not separate grazing and cropland revenues. 

Oklahoma: In Oklahoma, rentals are required to be determined by public 

auction. In 2004, the Oklahoma Commissioners of the Land Office used 

competitive bidding to collect between $7 and $16 per AUM for grazing on 

lands that it manages. The land office sets a minimum grazing fee based on 

appraisals, and the grazing leases are then auctioned and awarded to the 

highest bidder. The land office manages about 745,000 acres, of which 

about 500,000 were allocated for grazing in 2004. The land office does not 

know the total revenue related to grazing collected in fiscal year 2004 

because it does not separate grazing and cropland revenues. 

Oregon: The Oregon Department of State Lands may lease common school 

grazing lands subject to terms and conditions it sets or are otherwise 

legislated. In 2004, the department charged $4.32 per AUM for grazing on 

lands that it manages, using a formula that considers livestock production 

factors. The formula multiplies the (1) animal gain per month, fixed at 30 

pounds; (2) marketable calf crop, fixed at 80 percent; (3) the state share of 

the calf crop, fixed at 20 percent; and (4) average statewide calf sales price 

for the preceding year, from USDA’s Oregon agricultural price data. This 

annual rental is determined by multiplying the AUM rental rate by the 

average annual base rate forage capacity in AUMs of each leasehold and 
Appendix VI

Western State Grazing Fees and Formulas

Page 99 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

should be at least $100. The department is currently reconsidering Oregon’s 

grazing fee formula and is comparing the formula with the grazing fee 

formulas in surrounding states. The department manages almost 1.6 million 

acres, of which about 640,000 acres were allocated for grazing in 2004. 

Total grazing receipts in fiscal year 2004 were about $300,000.

South Dakota: In South Dakota, the Commissioner of School and Public 

Lands is to establish the minimum annual rental rate per acre, which is the 

rate at which bidding starts. In 2004, the South Dakota Office of School and 

Public Lands used competitive bidding to collect between $3 and $56 per 

acre on lands that it manages. The commissioner of the office sets a 

minimum grazing fee, $9 per AUM in 2004, using a formula that multiplies 

the nonweighted 5-year average price per pound of all calves sold in South 

Dakota by 425 pounds, the average calf weight. The number is then divided 

by 12 months and multiplied by a percentage set by the commissioner, 25 

percent in 2004. Once the minimum fee per AUM is established, the office 

divides the fee by the land’s annual carrying capacity in order to establish a 

minimum per acre opening bid. The office manages about 770,000 acres, of 

which about 750,000 acres were allocated for grazing in 2004. Total grazing 

receipts in fiscal year 2004 were about $2.25 million. 

Texas: The Texas General Land Office is to award leases to the highest 

responsible bidder. In fiscal year 2004, the land office charged between 

$4.16 and $12.50 per AUM for grazing on lands that it manages. For the 

most part, grazing fees are based on fair market value within the region. 

Staff members within the land office conduct on-site evaluations of state 

lands to assess the value of the lands and forage as a basis for the grazing 

fee, taking into consideration productivity, range condition, improvements, 

and location, among other factors. For those state lands without public 

access, the grazing fees may be negotiated based on the appraised rate with 

the adjacent landowner. The land office manages almost 750,000 acres, of 

which almost 550,000 acres were allocated for grazing in fiscal year 2004. 

Total grazing receipts in fiscal year 2004 were about $1.2 million.

Utah: The Director of the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration is required to base the grazing fee on the fair market value 

of the permit. In fiscal year 2004, the Utah School and Institutional Trust 

Lands Board of Trustees used a formula to charge $1.43 or $2.35 per AUM 

for grazing on lands that it manages. The board initially used the federal fee 

as the base rate for the state fee, but it now establishes the state fee by 

adjusting the previous year’s fee up or down, based on the 7-year trend of 

local prices for cattle, sheep, wool, and hay. The fees on state trust lands 
Appendix VI

Western State Grazing Fees and Formulas

Page 100 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

are typically about 60 to 90 cents more than the federal grazing fee: $2.25 in 

fiscal year 2004 plus a fee of 10 cents for weed and insect control. When a 

permit is up for renewal, ranchers or other interested parties, in addition to 

the current lessee, can submit bonus bids on the permit, but the current 

lessee has the right to match the bonus bid. On lands gained through land 

exchanges with the federal government, the federal grazing fee applies: 

$1.43 per AUM in fiscal year 2004. The Utah School and Institutional Trust 

Lands Administration is proposing that the Utah fees be increased over the 

next 3 to 5 years using a two-fee structure that will increase the fee to $3.80 

per AUM on trust lands that are intermingled with BLM lands and to $7 per 

AUM on other trust lands. The board manages about 3.5 million acres of 

land, of which about 3 million acres were allocated for grazing in fiscal year 

2004. Total grazing receipts in fiscal year 2004 were about $440,000.

Washington: The Washington State Department of Natural Resources has 

responsibility for issuing rules for the grazing of livestock and is to charge 

such fees as it deems adequate and advisable. In 2004, the Washington State 

Department of Natural Resources charged $5.41 per AUM3

 for range 

permits and $7.76 per AUM for grazing leases on lands that it manages. 

Range permits provide only the right to forage over a large area of land for 

a limited period of time each year, whereas grazing leases provide full 

leasehold rights, including control of the land. The fee for the range permits 

is set by a formula that considers several factors, including average 

livestock weight gain and livestock prices. The fee for the grazing leases is 

based on a 5-year rolling average of private fees, adjusted downward to 

account for higher operating costs on state lands, since the state provides 

no fences or other on-site services. The department manages about 3 

million acres of trust lands, of which almost 850,000 acres were allocated 

for grazing in 2004. Total grazing receipts from range permits and grazing 

leases in fiscal year 2004 were almost $650,000.

Wyoming: In Wyoming, the rental of any lease awarded is to be based on an 

economic analysis and must reflect at least the fair market value for the 

same or similar use of the land based upon a formula adopted by the Board 

of Land Commissioners. In fiscal year 2004, the Wyoming Office of State 

Lands and Investments charged $4.13 per AUM for grazing on lands that it 

manages. The grazing fee is established by a formula that multiplies the 

average private land lease rate per AUM for the 5 years preceding the 

3

This was the fee per AUM for cattle; for sheep, the grazing fee for range permits was $1.27 

per AUM in 2004. 
Appendix VI

Western State Grazing Fees and Formulas

Page 101 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

current year, as estimated by the Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service, 

by the 5-year weighted average parity ratio for beef cattle, as established by 

the National Agricultural Statistics Service, to adjust for changing resource 

conditions, market demand, and industry viability. The rate is then 

discounted by 20 percent to reflect lessee contributions. If the office 

receives an application for a lease at a higher amount, then the present 

lessee has the right to match the bid. The office manages about 3.6 million 

acres, of which about 3.5 million acres are used for grazing, including hay 

land. Total grazing receipts in fiscal year 2004 were almost $4.2 million.
Page 102 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Appendix VII

Comment from Department of the Interior ApendxiVI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix. (Page 

references in the letter 

may differ.)

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix VII

Comment from Department of the Interior

Page 103 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

See comment 3.

See comment 4.

See comment 5.
Appendix VII

Comment from Department of the Interior

Page 104 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Interior’s 

letter dated September 6, 2005.

GAO Comments 1. We disagree. The information in the report accurately and sufficiently 

reflects the information provided by BLM in many different documents 

and during multiple meetings with rangeland management officials 

regarding the benefits from the grazing program to local economies and 

ranchers. However, the information provided by BLM in these many 

meetings and documents did not refer to any indirect benefits that 

accrue to other BLM programs from the grazing program. While 

Interior’s letter states that such significant indirect benefits exist, it 

does not provide any detail on the nature of these benefits; and 

therefore, we have not made any modifications to the report. 

2. We changed the text to add the definition of a water base.

3. We met with attorneys and staff from BLM and Interior’s Office of the 

Solicitor on August 4, 2005, and have removed the footnote to which 

Interior refers in its comments.

4. In this section, we are not discussing the purpose of the fee and the 

grazing fee formula. Rather, we are observing that the fee formula 

includes factors that incorporate ranchers’ ability to pay (BCPI and 

PPI). We agree that other factors, such as access to public lands, enable 

ranchers to stay in production and therefore clarified the language, 

accordingly.

5. We disagree that a comparison of alternative fee structures is useless. It 

is useful to explicitly and periodically examine the implications of 

different policy choices as they relate to grazing fees and to consider 

alternative fee options. Our discussion of the McGregor Range is in the 

context of a broader discussion of competitive bidding and fees on 

BLM and Forest Service lands. That discussion clearly and carefully 

recognizes the impediments to establishing such a system. In particular, 

we recognize that such a system would only be established if the 

purpose of the program and fee were different from those which 

currently exist. BLM provided text to clarify the mixed ownership of 

McGregor Range, which we included in appendix V. 
Page 105 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Appendix VIII

Comments from the Forest Service ApendxiVI
Page 106 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Appendix IX

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIX

Key Contact Robin Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Andrea Brown, Susan Iott, 

Mehrzad Nadji, Tony Padilla, Lesley Rinner, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, 

Pam Tumler, and Amy Webbink made significant contributions to this 

report. In addition, Denise Fantone, Barry Hill, Miguel Lujan, Anne RhodesKline, and Jack Warner made important contributions to the methodologies 

used in this report. 
Page 107 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Related Products

Grazing Reports Large Grazing Permits. GAO/RCED-93-190R (Suppl.). Washington, D.C.: 

July 16, 1993.

Large Grazing Permits. GAO/RCED-93-190R. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 

1993.

Rangeland Management: Profile of the Forest Service’s Grazing 

Allotments and Permittees. GAO/RCED-93-141FS. Washington, D.C.: April 

28, 1993.

Rangeland Management: BLM’s Range Improvement Project Data Base Is 

Incomplete and Inaccurate. GAO/RCED-93-92. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 

1993.

Rangeland Management: Profile of the Bureau of Land Management’s 

Grazing Allotments and Permits. GAO/RCED-92-213FS. Washington, D.C.: 

June 10, 1992.

Rangeland Management: Results of Recent Work Addressing the 

Performance of Land Management Agencies. GAO/T-RCED-92-60. 

Washington, D.C.: May 12, 1992.

Rangeland Management: Assessment of Nevada Consulting Firm’s 

Critique of Three GAO Reports. GAO/RCED-92-178R. Washington, D.C.: 

May 4, 1992.

Grazing Fees: BLM’s Allocation of Revenues to Montana Appears 

Accurate. GAO/RCED-92-95. Washington, D.C.: March 11, 1992.

Rangeland Management: Interior’s Monitoring Has Fallen Short of 

Agency Requirements. GAO/RCED-92-51. Washington, D.C.: February 24, 

1992.

Rangeland Management: BLM’s Hot Desert Grazing Program Merits 

Reconsideration. GAO/RCED-92-12. Washington, D.C.: November 26, 1991.

Rangeland Management: Comparison of Rangeland Condition Reports. 

GAO/RCED-91-191. Washington, D.C.: July 18, 1991.

Rangeland Management: Current Formula Keeps Grazing Fees Low. 

GAO/RCED-91-185BR. Washington, D.C.: June 11, 1991.
Related Products

Page 108 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

Rangeland Management: Forest Service Not Performing Needed 

Monitoring of Grazing Allotments. GAO/RCED-91-148. Washington, D.C.: 

May 16, 1991.

Rangeland Management: BLM Efforts to Prevent Unauthorized Livestock 

Grazing Need Strengthening. GAO/RCED-91-17. Washington, D.C.: 

December 7, 1990. 

Rangeland Management: Improvements Needed in Federal Wild Horse 

Program. GAO/RCED-90-110. Washington, D.C.: August 20, 1990. 

Management of the Public Lands by the Bureau of Land Management and 

the U.S. Forest Service. GAO/T-RCED-90-24. Washington, D.C.: February 6, 

1990.

Change in Approach Needed to Improve the Bureau of Land 

Management’s Oversight of Public Lands. GAO/T-RCED-89-23. 

Washington, D.C.: April 11, 1989.

Management of Public Rangelands by the Bureau of Land Management. 

GAO/T-RCED-88-58. Washington, D.C.: August 2, 1988.

Public Rangelands: Some Riparian Areas Restored but Widespread 

Improvement Will Be Slow. GAO/RCED-88-105. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 

1988.

Rangeland Management: More Emphasis Needed on Declining and 

Overstocked Grazing Allotments. GAO/RCED-88-80. Washington, D.C.: 

June 10, 1988.

Rangeland Management: Profiles of Federal Grazing Program 

Permittees. GAO/RCED-86-203FS. Washington, D.C.: August 12, 1986.

Rangeland Management: Grazing Lease Arrangements of Bureau of 

Land Management Permittees. GAO/RCED-86-168BR. Washington, D.C.: 

May 30, 1986.

Public Rangeland Improvement—A Slow, Costly Process in Need of 

Alternate Funding. GAO/RCED-83-23. Washington, D.C.: October 14, 1982.
Related Products

Page 109 GAO-05-869 Livestock Grazing

User Fee Reports User Fees: DOD Fees for Providing Information Not Current and 

Consistent. GAO-02-34. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2001.

Federal User Fees: Some Agencies Do Not Comply with Review 

Requirements. GAO/GGD-98-161. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 1998.

Federal User Fees: Budgetary Treatment, Status, and Emerging 

Management Issues. GAO/AIMD-98-11. Washington, D.C.: December 19, 

1997.

(360487)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548